Sermon/Teaching Preparation Archives

How to Trim Down a Sermon

By Adam Nesmith | November 14, 2022

For me, the hardest part of preparing a teaching or sermon is figuring out what information to leave out. Cutting down a sermon is incredibly difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that it is very hard to find actual guidance on how to trim down a sermon. There are dozens of great resources for how to write better sermons, how to outline, how to write sermon application. But I have found very little concrete guidance for how to discern what parts of a sermon to keep, and what to edit out.

The Problem of Over-stuffed Sermons

There is an unfortunate tendency to equate a good, Biblical sermon with how many details a preacher or teacher gives. This tendency leads to what I will call “over-stuffed” sermons. These are sermons that are Biblical, sound, but try to communicate too much information in the allotted time slot. Sermons that are over-stuffed end up becoming less clear to the congregation. Listeners spend so much time trying to keep track of the many details you are giving rather than meditating on the main point of the text.

Now, I want to make an important distinction before going on. As a Bible-teacher or preacher, you must go into a great level of detail in your analysis when preparing a sermon. In your Bible study leading up to a preaching or teaching, you must dig into any and all details contained in your text. You must cross-reference, outline, look up the original languages, make observation after observation, and more if you want to get to the meaning of the text you are teaching. However, the art of preaching is in discerning which details to actually present to your congregation in a Sunday morning sermon. In other words, when you go from your study to the pulpit, you must trim down your sermon to only the most important textual details. If you simply go up and preach your detailed Bible study notes, chances are you are preaching and over-stuffed sermon.

The Solution: Trim Down Your Sermon to the Essential Details

In my experience, sermon length is generally driven by how many details you end up communicating in your sermon. How many points and sub-points do you have? How many words do you define from the pulpit? What cross-references do you include? Historical anecdotes? Illustrations? Applications? Therefore, to trim down a sermon, you must discern which of these details are essential to communicate, and which are secondary. The essential details should end up in your final sermon. Secondary details, on the other hand, you can trim out of your sermon to fit your allotted time and to ensure your congregation does not get lost in an over-stuffed teaching.

This seems obvious so far. But the question is how do you trim down a sermon? How can you discern which details are essential and which are secondary? Most of the time when I have asked for guidance on trimming down a sermon, I have gotten some form of “there is an art to it” or “I’m not that great at it myself, so I’m a bad example.” While it is certainly difficult to make universal rules, there is a helpful process you can go through to at least help you discern what details are essential and which are not. The process is simple: go through each section, point, detail, or cross reference in the first draft of your manuscript, and ask the following four questions (in order):

1. Does this detail give information that is mostly repeated elsewhere in the sermon?

I call this the “redundancy” test. Repetition is important in communication, but if you go to 10 cross-references in a sermon which all make the same point, maybe you can cut 8-9 of those cross-references and save yourself (and your listeners) some time. If a sermon point, observation, or application is too similar to information previously given in your sermon, you should probably cut it. Redundant details are by definition secondary and non-essential.

Each detail you choose to include in a sermon should move your preaching forward. If your application contains a point you already made earlier in your sermon, you can safely cut that application. If your text uses the same Greek word twice and you defined it earlier in the sermon, don’t bother going through the definition again when you come to it a second time. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. But 90% of the time, giving excessive redundant details tires the listener and eats away at the time you have to preach. You can trim down a sermon quickly by removing redundant details.

2. Does this detail give new information that is not directly related to the main point of the text?

I call this the “relevance” test. Sometimes, a sermon point or other detail might indeed give new, non-redundant information. But just because information is new does not mean you should include it. You must discern whether the detail is related to the main point of the text you are preaching or not. There is a time and a place for “rabbit holes” where you go off on a tangent semi-related to the text you are preaching out of. But if you do this repeatedly, you will end up spending most of your time teaching on concepts found elsewhere in the Bible but not in the text you are supposed to be preaching.

A good practice for discerning the relevance of sermon details is to explicitly write out what you think the main point of the text is. Summarize in a sentence or two what the Biblical author is communicating and what reality your text points to. Then, as you go through each point, sub-point, or other detail in your sermon manuscript, ask “does this connect to the main point or reality of the text?” If the answer is no, the information is secondary and can be cut from your sermon. You can trim down a sermon by discerning which details are relevant to the main point of the text and which details are not.

3. Does this detail clarify all or part of the main point of the text?

I call this the “clarification” test. If a detail you want to include in your sermon clarifies all or part of the main point of your text, it is most likely essential. As mentioned in the previous section, if you explicitly write out the main point of your text, this test becomes very easy. If the definition of a word is crucial for understanding the text’s main point, then it is a crucial detail to include. If a cross-reference to a clearer text sheds light on the text you are preaching, then you should probably include that cross reference.

Of course, too much “clarification” can cause you to become redundant. So ensure that each clarifying detail does, in fact, directly clarify the main point of your text and is not repeated elsewhere in your sermon. Check to see that the clarifying details you include are related to the main point of the text, not secondary points. Details that clarify the main point can safely be labeled “essential” and kept in your sermon. But if you find yourself clarifying sub-points, maybe save those details for another sermon.

4. Does this detail connect the main point of your text to a broader Biblical concept or doctrine?

I call this the “connection” test, and it is the most difficult one to do well. Because the Bible is a unified whole, you can always find connections between your text and other texts, themes, and doctrines. If you try to connect your text to everything you will end up failing the other three tests above. But part of preaching is showing how your particular text fits into the rest of Scripture. Details that connect the main point of your text to a great Bible doctrine or a great Bible theme are often essential and should be included.

As an example, imagine you are preaching on a text whose main point relates to justification by faith. You likely will want to connect your text to other passages which deal with this theme, like Romans 3. As long as you avoid being redundant or going down a rabbit hole, such doctrinal or thematic connections can help your congregation see the unity of Scripture and add weight to the text you are currently teaching. To help do this well, after you write out the main point of your text, ask yourself “what key doctrine or key Bible theme does this text most connect to?” From there, you can ensure that you keep any details in your sermon that connect your text with this doctrine/theme or cross-reference to other texts on the same doctrine/theme.

Conclusion: Trim Down Your Sermon Thoughtfully and Carefully

The goal of this post isn’t to cause you to second-guess every detail you include in your sermon. Rather, I want to give you a more structured way to thoughtfully and carefully trim down your sermon. While knowing what to cut and what to include is certainly an art, you can become better at it with practice. By applying the four questions above to different sections of your sermon, you will be surprised how much easier it is to decide what to keep and what to cut. As always, this process requires much prayer and considering your own congregation that you preach to.

If you keep “glorifying God through faithful and clear communication of your text” as the goal of your preaching, then trimming down your sermon can become just another act of faithfulness and worship.

For more tools to help you prepare sermons and teachings, click here. If you want to look over tools to help your own Bible study, click here. If you found this post helpful, share and subscribe below.

6 Spiritual Conditions in Your Congregation

By Adam Nesmith | April 21, 2022

The insight of Puritan pastors never ceases to amaze me. One area where Puritan pastors have helped me immensely is in learning how to preach and apply the Word of God. William Perkins in his book “The Art of Prophesying” writes that there are essentially 6 different spiritual conditions that can be found in any collection of people you preach to. Each of these spiritual conditions requires a slightly different preaching approach.

Perkins’ analysis is crucial for any pastor, elder, or person who finds themselves teaching or preaching at Church. Knowing the different spiritual conditions a person might find themself in will aid you in your sermon application, your sermon delivery, and in how you pray for the congregation to receive your exposition. Additionally, these broad categories will help you pastorally as you seek to build up and equip the congregation God has given you to shepherd.

1. Unbelievers who are ignorant and unteachable

The first category Perkins gives is unbelievers who are “ignorant and unteachable.” There are some humans who are both unaware of the state of their souls before God, and who also have no desire to hear the truth explained to them. One might label such people as “hard-hearted.” They are contentedly living a life of rebellion against God and spurn any rebuke or conviction they might receive from Scripture.

For those in this spiritual condition, Perkins recommends trying to reason with them. In particular, you should try to explain to them their wrong attitude and call out any known sins with the hope that their “consciences may be aroused.” The only way an unteachable unbeliever can be helped is for you to plead with them to see sin and its effect in their life. If you start to see the Spirit’s work in softening their hearts and making them teachable, you can continue in a more thorough explanation of truth. But if their hearts remain hard, only God has the power to make them teachable.

The implication for preaching or teaching is clear: be sure to impress upon your listeners the gravity of sin and fearful consequences of living a life in rebellion to God.

You cannot soften a human heart in your own power. But you can boldly and unashamedly proclaim the truth of humanity’s total depravity.

Don’t shy away from specifically calling out sin from your pulpit. It may be the only time an unbeliever gets their lifestyle questioned or challenged. Be like Paul when he preached to Felix on “righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25). And then having preached truthfully and soberly on sin and its consequences, pray that the dead hearts in your congregation would become teachable.

2. Teachable but ignorant

The second of these many spiritual conditions is a person who willing to learn, but who doesn’t possess knowledge of Scripture or the Christian faith. Perkins recommends using the catechism to help such people start to understand the fundamental principles of Christianity. The two doctrines Perkins recommends you start with are salvation and the glory of God. Focus on the “milk” of the Christian faith and seeking to answer clearly and concisely any questions the person may have.

Again, this has implications for how you preach in your Church. Within your congregation, there will be those who have a lesser understanding of Scripture and of its doctrines. Some may be unbelievers but who want to hear more about the Gospel. Others may be young believers who have not been instructed fully into all the different aspects of Scripture and Theology. While I don’t recommend you preach a catechism from the pulpit, seek to define terms clearly and try to anticipate and answer questions your listeners might have.

Don’t assume that every single person in your Church is at the same or even a similar level of knowledge. Even for common terms such as “justification” and “righteousness” seek to give a clear and concise definition. When you are done with your teaching manuscript, read through it and imagine that you are a new believer in the congregation. What questions would you have? Ensure that in the course of your sermon you answer any questions you anticipate a newer believer asking.

3. Have knowledge but aren’t humbled

This third category of people have an intellectual understanding of the truths of Scripture. However, they have not been convicted of sin nor have they been “humbled.” What Perkins refers to here is a “godly sorrow” that leads to repentance. Perkins defines “godly sorrow” as grief for sin because it is sin. In other words, true humbling conviction comes when a person is is sorrowful over sin itself, not merely the consequences of sin.

What Perkins recommends for people in this spiritual condition is the preaching of the law. The goal is to show the height of God’s standards so that a person can actually realize the extent and gravity of their sin. Of course, Perkins immediately clarifies the goal of preaching the law is to lead them to Christ and the hope of the Gospel. But if a person knows truth generally but feels no conviction of sin, the best thing a preacher can do is show them their dire need of a Savior.

Of all the spiritual conditions listed here, this one might be most pressing for preachers in modern-day America. Never before has information about the Bible been more readily available. Many in your congregation no doubt have a dozen different copies of the Bible along with dozens of good Books written by good Christians. Most of the time in your Church, issues won’t arise as much from a lack of information as much as from a lack of conviction of sin.

Remember when you go to preach that your congregation does not merely need to receive more “facts” about the Bible. They need to have their lives confronted with its teaching.

If you pastor or teach in very intellectual congregation, heed Perkins’ advice: lay out for them the moral demands of God’s law. The Bible teaches that “knowledge puffs up” and one of the best antidotes to pride is the humbling effect of preaching the law of God.

4. The humbled

People who find themselves in this category have the strong conviction of sin discussed above. Perkins gives two words of advice for dealing with these type of people: 1. ensure that their humbling is not merely external or superficial and 2. offer the comforts of the gospel. Perkins warns not to give comfort to someone prematurely who has not been truly humbled. I take this to mean you should not give the promise of assurance until you are sure of a person’s heartfelt repentance. False assurance can doom a person to think that they are save when they are not.

When you are preaching, don’t miss the opportunity to “do the work of an evangelist” by preaching clearly the hope of the Gospel. The only hope in life and death you can offer people is Christ alone. Therefore, if you neglect to clearly share the hope of Christ when preaching, you are missing the opportunity to give comfort to those in your congregation who are feeling the weight of their sin. Remind them to turn their eyes to Christ and His finished work, not merely to “try harder”.

5. Believers

Perkins gives three main categories of truths to teach those who are already believers: the gospel, the law, and the danger of indwelling sin. By “Gospel”, Perkins means preach justification, sanctification, and the perseverance of the saints. The law when preached to believers should mainly be calling them to holy living rather than proclaiming the curse of the law since Christians are free from that curse in Christ. However, Perkins does argue for preaching the consequences of disobedience to God, even if a Christian is free from the ultimate curse of the law.

Perkins goes as far as to say that if you want to fight your indwelling sin, you must begin by meditating on the law. Why? To remain humble and to cause you to fear using the freedom you have in Christ as an excuse for sin. And again Perkins states that the ultimate goal is to remind yourself of the gospel as your ultimate rest and comfort.

A whole separate post could be written on these three categories of teaching Perkins recommends for believers. Suffice to say, make sure that you teach on each of these categories frequently. Don’t spend all your time teaching on ambiguous doctrines or obscure texts. These are profitable at times, but ensure you are sticking consistently to preaching the Gospel, obedience to Christ, and war against indwelling sin. Whether your congregation recognizes it or not, these are the three most pressing categories of truth for their lives.

6. Fallen into sin

The last of the spiritual conditions I will discuss is a believer who has “fallen back” from the faith either “in faith or in lifestyle.” Perkins spends several paragraphs describing this type of person and I recommend you read his full discussion, as it is incredibly insightful. By way of summary, falling back in faith comes from falling into error. The pastor must correct any known error and remind the individual of the truths of the Gospel. Falling back in lifestyle means falling into sin such, as David with Bathsheba. Perkins recommends again expounding the law to this person so they can run back to the Gospel in repentance.

Correcting error and calling the congregation to renewed repentance both are necessary components of preaching. In 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul commands Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” There both an instructive and corrective component to preaching God’s word faithfully. And since you likely don’t know the specific spiritual state of each person in the congregation, ensure you are regularly confronting error and confronting sin so that those listening might hopefully avoid falling into either.

Your congregation has a mix of these spiritual conditions

Each of these spiritual conditions is likely represented by someone in your congregation. The visible Church is mixed with believers and unbelievers in various levels of spiritual health. Perkins’ categories are helpful for understanding the spiritual conditions you might encounter and how best to address them. Even though there are nuances to each response, at the end of the day, Perkins recommends constantly bringing people back to the law and the gospel. The hope is that people will see clearly the depths of their sin and their need for a savior.

For more tools to help you prepare sermons and teachings, click here. If you want to read another post on Puritan ideas about sermons, click here. If you found this post helpful, share and subscribe below. Follow the Average Churchman on Instagram to get updated whenever there is a new post.

selective focus photo of person holding book

3 Philosophies of Sermon Application

By Adam Nesmith | March 22, 2022

Composing and preaching a faithful, Christ-exalting sermon is a difficult task. Oftentimes, especially if you are a lay-elder or have not had formal theological training, you might struggle with questions such as “how should I structure the sermon?” or “where should I stick to expositing the text directly and where should I apply the text to the congregation?” The former question I answered in a past post, so today I want to give you three philosophies of sermon application that I have seen and heard from different faithful preachers.

It is important to note that I don’t think any one of these is the perfect approach or automatically will make you a great preacher. As I have listened to and read great sermons by great preachers, each one deals with sermon application differently. Spurgeon does it differently than MacArthur who does it differently than J. C. Ryle who does it differently than John Flavel. These three sermon application philosophies are merely the common ways I have seen Pastors of the past and present use.

1. No explicit or structured application section

In this approach, you spend all your preaching time explaining what the text means. You go into detail, you explain it thoroughly but you don’t extract any (or many) specific applications for your particular congregation. Instead, you simply preach the text faithfully and trust that the Holy Spirit will apply the sermon to the individual hearts and specific life-circumstances of the congregation.

A variation of this approach is to sprinkle in occasional application points as you go. In this case, you are primarily focused on simply preaching the text, but if you come to a section of your exposition that warrants a specific word to the congregation, you give a brief direct application. But in both cases, this approach does not have a structured section or approach to sermon application. You simply focus on explaining the passage and leave only limited time for explicit application.

I would argue against using this approach very often because I think part of the job of a faithful preacher is not only to faithfully expound Scripture, but also to explicitly and directly call their congregation to live it out. But there are times when this approach to sermon application is useful. In general, if your text is direct in it’s application, then you can more likely use this sermon application philosophy effectively. For example, if you are preaching “let him who stole, steal no longer”, the application to your congregation is clear. You don’t need a whole “application section” of your sermon to show the text’s relevance to your Church. However, if you are preaching a text that does not have a clear application built in, you might need to use one of the following sermon application philosophies instead.

2. Apply the text as you go through each point

In this philosophy, after each point of exposition in your sermon, you apply that point to the congregation. Let’s say you had a three point sermon structure. You would apply each sermon point right after you teach that point, like you see below:

Point 1
1. Application of point 1
Point 2
1. Application of point 2
Point 3
1. Application of point 3

The advantage of this approach is you are able to give the congregation practical applications throughout the length of the sermon. Additionally, this clear flow helps the Church remember each sermon point and its corresponding application(s). A Church member does not have to wait until the end of the sermon to start hearing and meditating on what the passage implies for their life. Rather, they are given multiple applications throughout the sermon based on each of the main points.

This approach shines when you have a complicated passage with several different main points in your sermon outline. If you are teaching on a large block of narrative, for example, and you extract several main ideas from the text, then you probably want to use this approach. Anytime you find in your sermon outline that there are more than one “main point” you find in the text, then you should likely think of applications for each of the main points. The downside of this approach is you can only do a limited amount of applications on any one point before your sermon becomes too long.

3. Sermon application at the end of the exposition

This philosophy of sermon application you readily find in Puritan sermons. In this approach, you spend the final section of your sermon applying the text your just preached. This type of sermon clearly separates exposition from application in it’s structure. If you used the three point example above, the sermon structure would become something like:

Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
Application
1. Application of Point 1
2. Application of Point 2
3. Application of Point 3

You can see that in this philosophy of sermon application, the application is given as much weight as a single main sermon point. Additionally, the sermon application is the last thing your congregation hears since it is an extended final section of the sermon. Since you are applying all that you exposited in the sermon, you can apply not only your main points, but also apply combinations of those points.

This philosophy of sermon application allows you to spend the most time applying your text to your congregation. By spending the entire latter section of your sermon on application, you can approach text application from a lot of different angles and points of view. This method excels when you are expositing a shorter passage or a passage that has one overarching point to apply. If you can summarize the content of the passage in a single sentence without losing a lot of its nuance, then this sermon application method might be best. However, if you are dealing with a long, complicated, or multi-faceted passage, it might be best to use the “apply as you go” method

Summary of Sermon Application Philosophies

The table below summarizes the different philosophies of sermon application.

Type	Use when	Users of this philosophy
No structured application section	Text already has a clear application i.e. passages in epistles, Proverbs, Gospels, etc.	John MacArthur
Apply each point as you go	Text has multiple and distinct “main points” i.e. longer passages, narrative passages, complicated passages	Martin Lloyd-Jones, Charles Spurgeon
Application section at end of the sermon	Text can be effectively reduced to a single central point, when a text warrants extensive application i.e. shorter passages, simpler passages, 1-3 verse sections	J. C. Ryle, most every Puritan pastor

Summary Table of Sermon Application Philosophies

As I mentioned at the beginning, there is no “one size fits all” approach to how and were you apply the Biblical text in your sermon. Each of these philosophies excel in different contexts and Pastors should have each in their “tool box.” My recommendation is after spending time studying your text and outlining your sermon, look and see which of these sermon application methods makes the most sense for your particular sermon.

Clear and insightful application of a Biblical text is one of the marks of a good Preacher.

For more tools to help you prepare and preach a sermon, click here. For a post on how to structure your sermon, click here. If you found this post helpful, share on social media and subscribe below. Follow The Average Churchman on Instagram to get more content.

An Alternative to Doctrinal Tiers

By Adam Nesmith | September 16, 2021

You have probably heard the phrase “doctrinal tiers” at some point if you have been involved at Church for any length of time. Each Church I have attended in both my childhood and adult life have either mentioned doctrinal tiers or explicitly included them on their Church website. Suffice to say, at some point in your life I have no doubt you will encounter doctrinal tiers if you attend a Bible-preaching Church.

But what are “doctrinal tiers?” Is it a helpful concept? Are there any problems with using it? And is there a better way to solve the same problems doctrinal tiers tries to solve? In this post, I want to answer each of these questions and, in particular, propose an alternative to doctrinal tiers which I call “doctrinal uncertainty.”

What are doctrinal tiers?

Doctrinal tiers are a means to categorize different Bible doctrines in order of importance, orthodoxy or necessity of belief. The number of tiers, what each tier contains, and how the tiers are used varies from person to person and from Church to Church. I have seen them formulated as a pyramid and as a target. Essentially, doctrinal tiers is a way to answer the question “what doctrines and biblical interpretations can Christians disagree on and yet still be considered orthodox in their theology?“

Knowing what Biblical doctrines are essential to be considered saved and orthodox and what doctrines are “secondary” is a vital and practical distinction to make. And that is really all the tiers are: a method of categorization. It is a way of saying “this set of biblical beliefs you must hold to in order to be considered Christian, but these other issues, while important, have varying valid, orthodox interpretations.”

Generally “first tier” issues are the foundational doctrines of the gospel:

Who Christ is
What the nature of Sin is
What is the gospel
How is one saved

And so on. In contrast, secondary or tertiary doctrines include:

Infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism
The various eschatological interpretations
Views on Church structure

And others. From these lists, it is clear the first set deals with doctrines essential for saving faith while the second list deals with different practical matters of Church life and the interpretation of difficult passages.

Now, the concept of doctrinal tiers is important and helpful to a degree. By knowing where the lines of orthodoxy are drawn, Christians can contend for “essential” issues and agree to disagree on other issues. However, there are several problems with the doctrinal tiers model.

Issues with doctrinal tiers

1. Who decides how many tiers should their be and why?

This is a common problem I see when I read about doctrinal tiers: there is no “standard” for how many tiers one creates. Many Churches I know of have either two or three tiers. If you have two tiers, you divide up doctrines between necessary for orthodoxy and doctrines which Christians can disagree on. The three tier model adds another category, typically on doctrines which affect Church practice.

But hypothetically, one need not stop at two or three tiers. Why not four? Five? Ten? At some point the categories end up losing their usefulness, but I think this highlights an issue with the doctrinal tiers model: there is no limit to which you can categorize doctrines by degree of importance. As soon as you open the door for “ranking” doctrines so to speak, there is no reason you have to stop at two or three levels. This can create a situation where some doctrines are seen as “unimportant” simply because they are in a lower tier. Eschatology is a great example: I have met many people who refuse to study the topic because it is “less important.”

2. Who or what decides what doctrine goes in what tier?

This becomes more of a problem the more tiers you add to your model. Who decides which doctrines are essential and which can be safely disagreed upon? For the most part, Christians agree doctrines related to Christ and the gospel are tier 1. But what about different view on God’s providence in salvation? For some people, this is closer to a tier 1 issue than to other people.

Additionally, many of the tier 2 or 3 doctrines in Scripture have a direct relation to tier 1 doctrines. For example, your understanding of the doctrine of baptism (tier 2+) is not independent from what you believe about the gospel (tier 1). And as mentioned above, your view of God’s sovereignty in salvation (most of the time tier 2+) is integral to what you believe about the work of Christ on the cross (tier 1).

The issue with doctrinal tiers is someone has to sort all this out in a way that is not arbitrary. But if you examine what different Churches put into different tiers, you will find enough variation to call into question the process of how the doctrinal tiers are developed. Not every Church agrees with what doctrines goes into what tiers. How then does one discern what the “right” tier is to put a doctrine into? Without some objective or explicitly Scriptural process to decide what doctrines go into what tier, the decision potentially becomes arbitrary.

3. Is there a strong textual basis for doctrinal tiers?

A final critique of the doctrinal tiers model is the Bible generally presents itself as a unity of truth. What I mean by this is Scripture does not label its own doctrines or order them from “most important” to “least important”. Rather, the Bible is presented as God’s revelation to man as a whole. Moreover, doctrines are developed from synthesizing a wide variety of Biblical literature: poetry, prophecy, narrative, epistles, etc. Very rarely does Scripture explicitly say a certain doctrine takes priority over a different doctrine, such as ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) being in a “higher tier” than eschatology (doctrine of end times).

There are two potential exceptions to this general rule. The first is the Bible puts an enormous emphasis on God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. All other doctrines throughout the different literature forms of Scripture build and point to this central reality. Therefore, one could say the doctrines of Christ & the gospel are in a tier or a class of their own.

The second exception is those portions of Scripture which seem to elevate certain moral commands over other commands. Examples of these would be when God says “I desire mercy not sacrifice” in the Old Testament or when Jesus says the Pharisees neglected the weightier matters of the law. This seems to imply a priority placed on the moral commands of Scripture over and against the ceremonial commands.

These two exceptions, however, are insufficient textual evidence for the doctrinal tiers system. Doctrinal tiers as a model does far more than merely emphasize the importance of the Gospel and it deals with whole Biblical doctrines rather than Biblical commands. Therefore, it could be said there is little internal evidence that one can form tiers of doctrines from the text of Scripture. In fact, the internal witness of Scripture seems to lead readers more towards trying to unify the doctrines of Scripture rather than categorize them in order of importance.

An alternative: doctrinal uncertainty

So, while doctrinal tiers is not a terrible or useless concept, it has its problems and the question must be asked if there is a better way forward. I think there is: rather than talking about doctrinal tiers, Christians should instead use a concept I will call “doctrinal uncertainty.” What do I mean by “doctrinal uncertainty?” There are certain doctrines in Scripture that are clearer and require less interpretation and synthesis than other doctrines. To use a previously referenced example, building out a doctrine of the Church is easier than synthesizing an entire eschatology.

The difference between doctrinal tiers and doctrinal uncertainty is how you group together different doctrines. With doctrinal tiers, you group doctrines by how important they are or how necessary they are to be considered orthodox. Doctrinal uncertainty, on the other hand, orders doctrines by how clear the Biblical text is on any given doctrine, how much interpretation is needed on the part of the theologian to synthesize a doctrine, and how likely it is for any given two people reading their Bible to come to the same conclusion on a doctrine.

Therefore, a doctrine such as the Gospel is less uncertain because the amount of times Scripture expounds/describes the Gospel and the clarity with which the text speaks about it. By contrast, a doctrine such as “gifts of the Spirit” has more uncertainty because there are less texts which address the topic, some of the texts are open for multiple interpretations, and the wide variety of interpretations which exist on the topic.

The doctrinal uncertainty model orders doctrines not by an arbitrary or semi-arbitrary selection by a pastor or theologian. Rather, it looks at where the doctrine came from, what texts are synthesized to reach a given conclusion, and asks “how clear and certain is this conclusion? or are there other other valid, orthodox interpretations?” Therefore, the question of infant baptism vs. believers baptism is framed not in terms of “this is a doctrine which is not essential to the faith” but “this is a doctrine with which there is uncertainty and therefore there are several valid conclusions.”

What are the sources of doctrinal uncertainty? Or to put it another way, why do different orthodox Christians come to different conclusions with the same text of Scripture? I think there are three main sources of doctrinal uncertainty.

Sources of doctrinal uncertainty

1. Different interpretations of specific texts

Certain texts have ambiguous language which lends itself to two or more valid interpretations. Of course, Scripture must be compared with Scripture to choose a single meaning, but any ambiguity in a text introduces uncertainty to your exposition. A good example of this is the beginning of John 3:16. Many English translations say “For God so loved the world…” Certain translations, however, say “God loved the world in this way.”

Why the different translations? Because the Greek word houtos can either refer to a degree or a means. The first translation “For God so loved the world” would therefore mean “God loved the world to this great degree.” The second translation would mean “The way or means in which God has shown love to the world is…” The point here is not to argue for one of these or the other; you can do that in your own study. The point here is the language used in the verse introduces uncertainty.

Different interpretations of language in certain texts is one source of doctrinal uncertainty. Oftentimes, when part of a doctrine is based primarily on a few verses, this uncertainty can become significant if any of these verses uses ambiguous language. When two different Christians choose two different interpretations of an ambiguous verse, they may come to different conclusions on a doctrine.

2. Different synthesis of the data

This is probably the most common source of doctrinal uncertainty. Maybe all the texts you are studying are crystal clear. However, building a doctrine involved synthesizing those texts into a coherent statement on whatever topic you are trying to study. Sometimes, it is uncertain how certain verses fit together. This uncertainty in synthesis leads to uncertainty in the doctrine itself.

This is one reason why eschatology is possibly the most uncertain of doctrines: Christians continue to disagree on the topic because synthesizing all the passages which discuss eschatology is incredibly difficult and lends itself to several valid interpretations. Additionally, many of the individual texts use ambiguous imagery. The reason Christians should not divide over eschatology isn’t because it is a “second level” doctrine per se. Rather, eschatology has so much uncertainty built into it that dividing over it would be foolish compared with dividing over a clearer doctrine such as Christ and the gospel.

A quick look at the different doctrines many people put into the “second or third tier” of the doctrinal tiers system shows that most of these non-first tier doctrines are the ones which have more uncertainty around their synthesis of the Biblical data. Examples are eschatology, Church government, covenant theology, and so on. They are not second tier in the sense of less important than other doctrines. Rather, they have more uncertainty when interpreting all the Biblical data on the topics.

3. Different historical conclusions of the Church

There are certain doctrines which the Church has generally agreed upon for hundreds of years. These doctrines generally have less uncertainty then other doctrines. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was expressed so clearly in the early Church, that there has been little deviation in interpretation among Bible believing Christians since then. However, other doctrines have always been interpreted differently throughout the history of the Church. If you are dealing with one of these doctrines, you will find uncertainty among the historical conclusions of the Church.

Many “second tier” doctrines are those which the Church throughout history has disagreed upon. I think one of the reasons God’s sovereignty in salvation (i.e. Calvinism vs. Arminianism) is often delegated as “second tier” has nothing to do with it’s importance. Rather, it is an issue that has long been debated throughout the history of the Church. This historical uncertainty leads causes current Churches to adopt a “don’t divide over this issue” stance.

Conclusion: doctrinal tiers vs doctrinal uncertainty

Both the concept of doctrinal tiers and doctrinal uncertainty are useful for understanding and categorizing the Bible’s teaching. They can, in fact, both be used together; one does not need to exclusively use one or the other. Christians must understand what Scripture teaches clearly about salvation and the Gospel while realizing certain texts are more difficult to interpret. Both doctrinal tiers and uncertainty are methods to get at this distinction.

However, while tiers are helpful, I think doctrinal uncertainty is in many cases a better concept to highlight. Doctrinal uncertainty captures not just the difference in relative importance of doctrine, but also the difference between how clearly Scripture presents a doctrine. Doctrinal uncertainty is inherently more focused on the text of Scripture itself. In this way, doctrinal uncertainty is an attractive alternative to doctrinal tiers when dealing with the question of why Christians disagree on some interpretations of Scripture and which interpretations are within orthodoxy.

This post is one of many tools and thought pieces for helping Pastors and those who teach at Church. Click here for more helpful tools. If you found this post insightful, share on social media below and subscribe. Follow The Average Churchman on Instagram to get more content.

We Need Worldview-Confronting Preaching

By Adam Nesmith | July 21, 2021

The Bible is powerful. Every Christian who has a proper view of Scripture will agree with this. The Bible convicts, corrects, rebukes, and trains in righteousness. It is living and active, sharper than a two edged sword. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So how can a preacher or teacher in the Church clearly present this powerful Word to a congregation? The answer is worldview-confronting preaching.

There are many types of preaching and different forms of sermon structure. But regardless of the structure, preaching should help the people of God see with clarity the truth of God so their lives are changed. That last part is key. Christians are called to be doers of the word, not hearers only. In a culture that seduces with the subtle sins of self-determination, worship of money, and pride, Pastors and teachers need to clearly contrast what the word of God says with what the culture says.

In this post, I want to lay out what worldview-confronting preaching is, why it is important, and how to do it when you are preaching or teaching.

Nothing is more important in the present time than to show how the Bible specifically corrects the false beliefs our modern culture holds

It is only through exposure to the living word of God that people can see the surpassing value of Christ and have their hearts transformed through the Holy Spirit.l

Worldview-confronting preaching defined

When I say “worldview-confronting preaching”, I am really talking about a form of application which is directed to the listeners. Other people have written far better definitions of “worldview” than I can in this post. For our purposes, “worldview” is a set of lived out beliefs and values. There are numerous sources which affect one’s worldview and one’s worldview affects how a person interprets reality around them.

Christians want to hold a set of lived out beliefs and values which align with Scripture. They want to interpret reality as God defines it, not how they define it. However, even the strongest Christian is influenced by sin and the culture around them.

Christians need to have their worldviews constantly corrected and conformed to the teaching of Scripture

This does not happen automatically. And that is why I say “worldview-confronting preaching is needed. This type of preaching goes right to the heart of the issue: people have wrong & sinful beliefs and values which cause them to live in opposition to God and His word. The goal of worldview-confronting preaching is to expose this; to show that everyone is influenced by wrong thoughts about God, Christ, ourselves, those around us, and the world in general.

The second aspect of worldview-confronting preaching is to then present the worldview Scripture gives. You show that God’s ways are right, are clear, are superior to the values and beliefs the world holds. It is through this contrast that your listeners can see their wrong beliefs for what they are and to see the beauty and wisdom of how God has ordered the world.

The importance of worldview-confronting preaching

I don’t think it is a great secret that you and I live in an age of excessive information. Everyone, including Christians, is bombarded with hundreds of worldviews, values, facts, and arguments every single day. Whether through the television, the internet, social media, news, music, art, or simply hanging around other people, it can become exhausting to be constantly discerning with what you listen to.

The danger is all this information is not neutral. It has an effect on you. As you are constantly exposed to various secular worldviews, you can unconsciously start to adopt them. Here is an example: imagine you are working in an office full of people whose sole purpose in life is to advance in their career and get more money. They are all smart, and driven, but living purely for themselves.

What kind of impact would your coworker’s worldview have on you? Even if it is subtle, I would argue to some degree that love of money and selfish ambition would influence you. Perhaps you start thinking more about money than you used to. Maybe because you want to earn the respect of your coworkers, you start working harder and longer hours, but for the wrong reasons.

What do you need on a Sunday in this example? You need a Pastor to expound Scripture clearly and show how love of money, according to God, leads to ruin but “godliness with contentment is great gain.”

Worldview-confronting preaching aims to equip congregants with the Bible’s worldview so when they are confronted with false worldviews every single day, they stay firmly fixed on what God’s word says

Practical steps to take

After expositing a text of Scripture using the tools available, what do you do next? I would argue there are four “steps” you have to take to preach in a worldview-confronting way.

1. Explain the right beliefs, values, and actions as laid out in the text

The first step is to clearly communicate the worldview God lays out in the text you are studying. Ask these questions of your text :

What does this text have to say about God? About mankind? Christ?
Are there any things in this text that are held up as valuable? As worthless? Dangerous? Good?
What commands, explicit or implicit, are given in this text?
How does this text explain the world around you?

There are other questions you could ask, but these are a good start. Your goal should be to connect the specific text you are teaching to the present reality your listeners are experiencing. What is the worldview God communicates in this text? Lay it out for your congregation so they can see it.

2. Contrast this with the beliefs, values, and actions the culture has

Once your listeners see what the Biblical worldview is, remind them how completely different it is from the worldview of the culture. Use these questions to help:

What beliefs are common in the culture that are opposite of this text?
What are the things the culture values which this text shows are worthless? Are there things the culture considers worthless that this text declares are valuable?
Describe the wrong actions that are common in the culture because they don’t believe this text
How does the culture describe the world which is in opposition to this text?

The key here is to accurately describe the culture’s worldview. Don’t just make up things about “the culture.” Don’t commit a straw man fallacy. Also don’t only focus on the most extreme beliefs of the culture all the time. Deal with subtle things like self-love or pride or excessive busyness for its own sake.

3. Show where adopting the culture’s beliefs, values, and actions leads a person

You could simply stop after the first two steps. But oftentimes, it is not enough to show the difference between the Biblical worldview and the culture. You need to show that the culture’s worldview isn’t merely wrong; it is ruinous. It will destroy those who follow it, even though it promises happiness. To do this, answer these questions:

What happens when a person adopts this belief which is contrary to God’s word?
How will following the world instead of God take away a person’s happiness and peace?
What poor or sinful choices will a person make if they follow the world instead of God’s word?

Oftentimes, Christians let the culture inform their worldview subtly over time because they think there is some utility in it. Perhaps they think a certain belief will make them happy or it seems more loving or it is safe or it will make them more “effective”. To combat subtle syncretism, you must show only Scripture’s path leads to life and all others lead to death. Warn your congregation of the dangers of following the world instead of God.

4. Expound the superiority of Scripture’s worldview and how it better explains reality

Finally, after showing the path of sin leads to ruin, circle back to God’s truth. Display again for your listeners how much better God’s ways are. Leave you listener without a doubt that what the Bible says is better in every way than the voices of the culture. Here are some questions to help:

How does the worldview presented in your text display God’s glory? God’s wisdom?
In what ways does this text better represent reality compared with the culture’s worldview?
What promises does God make with regards to this text?
How does this text connect to God’s plan for the world? To Jesus and the Cross?

For the preacher, this last step is a time for worship. God has graciously shown His people the path to life. He has given them wisdom for how to live in this complicated world. There is blessing when you follow God’s word.

Conclusion

Churches need worldview-confronting preaching. No body benefits from preaching which says “peace, peace when there is no peace.” Part of “equipping the saints for the work of service” is helping them see that God’s ways lead to life and the world’s ways lead to death. Don’t expect your congregation to connect the dots themselves. Clearly show the contrast between the biblical worldview and the world’s explanation of reality.

If you truly believe the Bible contains the truth and the only path to life, take every opportunity to share with other people just how unique and wonderful God’s truth is. There is not worldview, false religion, or belief system that compares to it. When you directly show the superiority of the Bible’s worldview over and against the culture’s worldview, you are glorifying God by showing His infinite worth and superiority over every man-made philosophy.

Did you find this post helpful? Subscribe and share below. For other tools to help you preach or teach, click here. Follow The Average Churchman on Instagram for even more content.

Practical Ways to Practice Writing

By Adam Nesmith | July 9, 2021

Writing was never my favorite subject in School growing up. I didn’t hate it, but I never imagined I would enjoy it. Now, But as I have grown, I have found the power and pleasure writing brings. A question has always been in the back of my mind though: how does one become a good writer? What should you do to practice writing?

Others have made the crucial point that “writer’s write.” But if you are already writing, how do you become better at your craft? I was reading a secular book called “Grit” the other day, and part of a chapter gave me the answer I was looking for. Apparently, Benjamin Franklin devised a practical way to practice writing. I think his method is worth sharing.

How Ben Franklin became a better writer

Practice writing by “rewriting” the work of others

In his autobiography, Franklin described a simple but effective method he used to improve his writing. The first exercise he discussed had the following steps:

Find a piece of writing you admire (choose something small to medium length, like an essay)
Make short notes on each sentence
Wait a while, normally a day or two
Try to rewrite the original piece using only your notes
Compare your “rewrite” with the original to see where you can improve

This is a brilliant little method for improving your writing. Essentially, you use the writing of others to get instant feedback on your own writing. You begin to see all the choices writers have to make as they find words to describe reality or abstractions. Since most of us don’t have an English teacher at our beck and call to edit our writing, rewriting an essay and comparing it with the original is a useful way to see where you can improve as a writer.

If you want to try this, find an article on Desiring God that you enjoy and see if you can rewrite it. You will be amazed at the insight you get into your “writing style” simply by performing this exercise once.

Practice writing by analyzing the logic and structure

Getting feedback on your writing in general is not always enough. You must test your ability to string together logical arguments and test the way you structure papers. This second exercise is similar to the one above, with a few notable additions:

Find a piece of writing you admire (choose something small to medium length, like an essay)
Make short notes on each sentence. Put each sentence’s notes on a separate note card or sticky note
Wait about three days
Jumble up your note cards or sticky notes
Try to put them back in a logical order
Proceed to try to rewrite the piece you made notes on using only your notes
Compare your “rewrite” with the original to see where you can improve

As you can see, the process is almost identical to the first exercise except you mix up your notes. This added step forces you to think about how to organize your writing. It makes you think about the flow of a paper. Structure and logic are crucial to good writing, and this exercise makes you “reverse engineer” both of these from a paper.

I have written before about the need to analyze a Bible passage’s argument in your study. I also wrote a whole post on the many different ways you could structure a teaching or sermon. This exercise gives you practice structuring your thoughts. And clear thinking often leads to clear writing.

Practice writing by poetry

Finally, Franklin gave what I consider to be the most interesting exercise of all. The first exercise gave you instant writing feedback, the second forced you to think about logic and structure; this final exercise is about expanding your command of language itself. The process is shorter than the previous two exercises:

Take a story (or some other form of prose) and write it as poetry
Wait enough time to forget the original story
Turn your poem back into narrative form
Compare with the original

I love this: you write poetry based on non-poems. How does this help you? Poetry is full of metaphor, imagery, and language meant to engage your five senses. In order to turn a non-poem into a poem, you must use all of these tools and ask yourself “If this event/line/concept was a poem, what would it say? How can I use sensory language to describe the same things going on in this non-poem?”

Interestingly, this is something the Bible does all the time. After the Red Sea crossing, for example, you read an extended poem responding to and interpreting the previous event. The Bible uses poetry and narrative oftentimes to describe the exact same event. Even if you never become “a poet”, this exercise improves your writing by forcing you to think “poetically.”

What if you don’t have time?

That is how Benjamin Franklin improved his writing. I don’t know about you, but I don’t always have extra time to spare doing extra exercises to practice my writing. Thankfully, Christians can perform these exercises as they do their normal spiritual disciplines.

Write a teaching based on a passage of Scripture

The first exercise is the easiest to do:

Read a passage of Scripture
Take notes as you study
A couple days later, write a brief teaching based on that passage from your notes only
Compare it with the original passage to see anything you missed

One of the reasons I have ongoing teaching series on this website is to force myself to perform Franklin’s first exercise. Bible study is vital for every Christian, but a lot of benefit comes from writing out what you studied in the form of a teaching. After you finish your study, ask yourself “how would I communicate these truths to others?”

There are always opportunities to teach and share truth with others. You don’t have to be a pastor or a Sunday School teacher. Share truth in your home, in your small groups. The process of writing out what you learned from a Bible study will not only cause you to remember God’s truth better and longer, it will also improve your writing.

Outline a passage or a sermon you listened to

Similarly, you can get the benefits of Franklin’s second exercise simply from outlining. Outlining forces you to think how a passage or a sermon is structured. Here is how to do it:

Read a passage of Scripture or listen to a sermon
Take notes on the structure of the passage or sermon in outline form
Leave and come back to the same passage you read or heard preached a couple days later
Make a second outline and compare it with the first

Outlining is one of many important Bible study tools. When I prepare a sermon, outlining is the first thing I do. You have to understand the structure and logic and flow of a passage first. But an added benefit is outlining makes you a better writer.

I don’t bother writing anything on this website without first having a clear structure and flow in my mind. Sometimes I change it as I write, but if you don’t have a plan going in, it becomes hard to get anything on the page.

Write hymns and spiritual songs based on Scripture

Franklin’s third writing exercise is actually the easiest for a Christian. You and I are called to “sing unto the Lord a new song.” In my experience, the best songs are those tied closely to Scripture. So, follow these steps:

Find a passage of Scripture which grips you
Turn that passage of Scripture into a hymn

You don’t need to necessarily share this song you wrote with the whole Church. But you can. God is worthy of infinite worship, so you can never have enough songs to sing to Him. Write a new one, a personal one to Him. Base it off the promises in His word. And you will also find your writing and use of language will improve as you do this.

Conclusion

Writing is rarely easy, but I have found it is always rewarding. It is an avenue of creativity the Lord gave humans as a means to externalize their thoughts and feelings and reflections. God chose to reveal Himself most directly through the written word. Christians should value and seek to develop writing and reading as skills. There are many ways to do this, but I hope the practical tips Franklin used can be useful for your own life as well.

Check out other tools to improve your Bible study here. If you found this post helpful, share and subscribe below. Follow The Average Churchman on Instagram to get other resources I recommend.

How to Effectively Structure a Sermon

By Adam Nesmith | May 14, 2021

No one taught me how to structure a sermon or a teaching. I was given a limited amount of tools for studying a text, and I was told the importance of preaching. But the question of how to effectively structure a sermon was not answered for me. So, through reading and listening to a wide variety of preaching, I found a number of different ways to create an orderly sermon.

There is certainly not “one way” to structure a sermon. But there are a number of patterns or “archetypes” used by preachers both present and past. In this post, I want to give you a handful of ways to structure a sermon. There is no perfect way, in fact, I would recommend thinking through sermon structure each time you preach. Depending on the text, the length of the passage, the type of literature, and other factors, one structure might be preferred to another.

I will first define three important terms that I will use to analyze sermon structures. Then, I will present two general sermon structures from two different structures derived from the New Testament Epistle. Finally, I will present a few sermon structure “archetypes” I have analyzed by listening and reading the great expositional preachers through history.

Definitions: Doctrine, Application

The distinction between doctrine and application is one of the most important concepts to think through. In order to even begin to think about sermon structure, you must understand the vital difference between doctrine and application. Essentially, doctrine describes reality. It is a declarative statement from the Lord about what the world really is like. Application, on the other hand, gives the readers/listeners how they should live in light of this reality. It is an imperative statement which commands some response.

For example, if I said “It is raining outside,” that is a declarative statement. I am making a claim about reality. If I followed this up with “You should bring an umbrella” I am now making an imperative statement. In light of the reality of rain, I tell you that you should bring an umbrella. Most of the time, doctrine and application are connected with a “therefore”. Because something is true, you should do something.

Scripture is full of doctrinal teaching and application. But different authors go about this in different ways. The two main different ways which are helpful when thinking about sermon structure are what I will call “Paul style” and “Peter style”. I will first go through each of these styles before looking at how preachers in general often structure their sermons.

Sermon Structures Derived from Scripture

Doctrine-application structure

Even though there are exceptions, Paul favored introducing doctrine first before application in his epistles. Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians all have a pretty “predictable” structure. Paul spends the early chapters of the book piling on doctrinal, declarative, objective spiritual truths. He builds on these truths throughout the book until he reaches a “therefore.” This “therefore” transitions from the first half of the books which is primarily declarative to the second half which is primarily imperative.

Romans 12 is a great example. For 11 chapters, Paul goes through doctrine and truth and spiritual reality. Then, in Romans 12, Paul transitions to imperatives with a “therefore”.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Romans 12:1, ESV emphasis added

How does this help you structure a sermon? The way Paul structures his epistles is one of the foundational sermon structures you could choose from. Essentially, a “Pauline” sermon structure might look something like this

Introduction
Expound, analyze, and argue doctrinal truth
Take that doctrinal truth and command a certain, necessary behavior from your congregation in response to it

The “logical progression” structure I discuss at the end of this post borrows from Paul’s typical flow. Essentially, since all application should arise from doctrinal truth, sermons which use a “Paul style” strictly separate doctrine and application. Moreover, this type of structure focuses on presenting doctrine first before transitioning to any sort of commands.

The benefits of this structure include:

Clear division of doctrine and application so they are not confused
Complete focus on either doctrine or application rather than switching from one to another
Logical order of doctrine then application based on that doctrine

Apply-as-you-go

The other major ordering of doctrine and application you see in the New Testament is common in the general Epistles. I call it the “Peter style” even though the ordering is found in Hebrews, 1 John, and James. In 1 Peter, Peter does not wait until the end of the letter to transition to application. Peter applies doctrine as he goes. Throughout 1 Peter, you read a doctrine and then almost immediately see it applied.

For example, halfway through 1 Peter 1, the text transitions from discussing the salvation and inheritance the Church has received in Christ to a call to holy living.

It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:12-13, ESV emphasis added

So, a “Peter style” sermon structure does not move from doctrine to application, but from one point to the next. A sermon using this organization would look like this:

Introduction
Expound doctrinal truth 1
Apply doctrinal truth 1
Expound doctrinal truth 2
Apply doctrinal truth 2
Repeat until finished

As you can see, each point is applied as you go through the teaching. This style has several benefits:

Gives readers/listeners practical application as the sermon progresses
By applying doctrine as you go, each application is directly tied to whatever specific doctrine it arises from

There is more that could be said on the different ways to divide doctrine and application. But understanding the two general Biblical relations gives a helpful context for analyzing the sermon structures of great preachers.

Sermon Structure Archetypes from Great Preachers

There are four general patterns I have seen in how preachers order their sermons. I have ordered these four archetypes from most “text driven” in structure to most “preacher driven” in structure. “Text driven” refers to how much of your sermon structure is derived directly from the text while “preacher driven” refers to how much of your sermon structure comes from your own opinion on how the sermon should be ordered.

Running commentary

The first archetypal sermon structure I have encountered is what I will call the “running commentary”. Calling it a “structure” might be deceiving, however, because it is almost a non-structure. Your sermon starts at the beginning of the text and ends where you decide to end for that week. Its characteristics are simple:

Introduce & read the whole passage
Read a small section of the passage
Explain what it means
Move on to the next small section
Explain what it means
Repeat until complete

As you can see, there really is no formal structure to this type of sermon. The preacher simply works through the passage word by word, line by line and explains it and applies it as he goes. If you choose to preach using this method, you probably don’t even think about “sermon structure”. You simply go through the text and give your commentary to the congregation as you go.

There are definite positives to this method:

Every single word of a passage is explained to some degree
You can devote more focus to studying a text rather than figuring out how to structure your sermon
The length of the sermon can easily scale based on how large a passage you choose

There are some drawbacks to the “running commentary” method, however:

It is easy for your sermon to lack emphasis
You can focus so much on individual words or phrases that you “miss the forest in the trees”
Your sermon can sound more like a class teaching rather than heralding the word

I would argue this method is most helpful for dense passages of Scripture like prophecy or the Epistles. Passages which have a definite logical argument or inherent structure can benefits from having the “running commentary” approach applied. The thoroughness of this method makes it applicable to the most complicated and detailed portions of Scripture.

Text-determined structure

This method is still based on the text, but gives a more defined structure to your sermon than the “running commentary” method. Essentially, you look at whatever passage of Scripture you are expounding and find any transitions, shifts, or sections that are contained within it. You then use these divisions to form the backbone of your sermon. In the end, your sermon structure looks like this:

Introduce the text and its main divisions
Read, expound, and apply the first section
Read, expound, and apply the second section
Repeat until all sections of text are preached

This method I call “text-determined” because you are letting the logical, grammatical, or textual breaks of a passage determine each section of your sermon. In this way, your sermon structure is still determined by the passage of Scripture itself, but you are extracting an outline from the passage instead of just walking through the passage.

If I had to summarize this method, it is making the outline of your sermon the outline of the passage. To apply the “text-determined structure” you should outline the Bible passage you are preaching early on in your study. From there, you already have a rough sermon structure into which you can add any application or further exposition.

This method has a lot of advantages:

The flow of your sermon follows the flow of the passage
Sermon structure is easily seen by your congregation in the text itself
Your sermon’s transitions are based on real transitions within the text
Outlining the passage does “double duty” by also becoming the headings of your sermon

Some drawbacks to this method include:

Not every text or literary type easily breaks into a defined structure
Depending on the length of your text, your sermon can have too many points
The structure of the text might not be an ideal structure for understanding the meaning of the text

What is great about the “text-determined” structure is how applicable it is to different literary types and text lengths. I think it particularly shines when preaching through Psalms (which often have clear transition points), Epistles (which have logical and grammatical features which are easy to use as transition points), Proverbs, and prophetic writings. I would argue in most cases, this structure should be your default.

Clearest communication structure

This sermon structure is less “text driven” and more “preacher driven.” It is similar to the “text-determined” structure, only with another step to it. You find the transition points of a passage and outline it. However, then you order whatever sections exist in the text in an order you as the preacher think makes the most sense. You essentially pick whatever headings or points you think the text makes, and then order your sermon based on what you think makes the most sense to your listeners. A “clearest communication” sermon would look something like this:

Introduce the text and the main points you will preach on
Give point 1, show where it exists in the text, expound, apply
Give point 2, show where it exists in the text, expound, apply
Repeat until done preaching the passage

In this method, you are not making the outline of the text the outline of the sermon. Your sermon outline, though based in the text and your study of it, is decided by you, the preacher. You think through what the most clear way to preach the text is and you let that concern for clarity drive how you order your sermon. In the end, you decide what the “organizing factor” is within the text, whether that be the main points of emphasis, the main characters of a passage, or the events of the passage. In this method, you must make a sermon structure apart from whatever structure already exists in the text.

There are some definite benefits to this method:

You can make the emphasis of the passage the clear emphasis of your sermon
Your congregation is in view as you study and prepare to preach
This method allows you to reduce a long or complex passage into a few central points

As with all methods, there are some drawbacks too:

Your sermon structure can become arbitrary or foreign to the text itself
It can be less clear to the congregation where you get each point you make
You can spend too much time focused on how to present the text rather than what the text says

The “clearest communication” structure really shines with narrative sections of Scripture and long passages of Scripture. I have written before on the difficulties with preaching narrative. Unlike poetry or logical argumentation, narrative does not always have a clear structure to extract. Therefore, having the “clearest communication” structure in your toolbox will help you when you have to summarize large portions of Scripture or when you have to deal with texts that don’t have clear or equally sized divisions.

Logical progression structure

This final sermon structure is the most “preacher driven” and has the least connection to the structure of the text you are preaching. The “logical progression” structure fits any sermon on a given passage of Scripture into three categories: definition, exposition, and implication. The structure is as follows:

Introduce and read the text
Define key words in the text
Summarize the doctrinal truth from the text
Expound on this truth by connecting it with other Scripture
Draw out logical implications and applications of the doctrinal truth to your listeners.

This structure follows the “what does it say, what does it mean, how do I apply it” flow of a typical “inductive Bible study.” The Puritans often used this structure when they preached.

Some benefits of this structure include:

Clear, predictable flow for the congregation
Covers all major aspects of studying and applying a text
The sermon builds logically from the verse itself to the listener
The last thing your congregation hears is how the text applies to their lives

The drawback so the logical progression structure are:

Forces you to fit the nuances of a text into arbitrary categories
Treats all types of literature in the Bible the same way
Demands you reduce all of a passage into a single, definite proposition

I personally really enjoy this way of structuring a sermon. It particularly shines in expounding Epistles or smaller statements found in other Biblical literature. I do think this structure is not as effective with narrative passages or larger sections of Scripture in general. But if you are teaching only a verse or two, I highly recommend preaching like the Puritans did.

Conclusion

Structuring a sermon is a difficult but necessary task. There are a number of ways to order your teaching and no one way is the best fit for every type of literature of Scripture. My hope is that after reading this post, you have a few more sermon structures to pull from in the future. One of the highest privileges of a preacher is presenting the truth of the Bible clearly to the congregation. Keep thinking through ways to better communicate God’s truth to others.

For tools to help you in your sermon preparation, check out the Bible Study Tools page. If you need help thinking through sermon application, use these series of questions the Puritans used. I used some of these sermon structures in my own preaching, which you can find here.