Preferred Method of Preaching?

My preferred style of preaching is expository.

From my experience, those pastors who seek to preach extemporaneous do so basically as a poor excuse for no disciplined preparation time.

And as far as I am concerned there is absolutely no excuse for this type of thing.

 

Jim1999 said:

Is there really such a thing as extemporaneous preaching then? Don't almost all ministers have something on their mind when they take the stand?

I agree, Squire. The Holy Spirit makes the difference.

 

It's a two-sided coin. The other side is the hearer. The hearer must also be prepared, but prepared to receive the word. IMO that is perhaps the greater problem.

NKJV James 1
19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath;
20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

HankD

 

If a man lacks the gift of oratory, he might better rehearse his sermon and read it from the pulpit. This is no less preaching the word, and he might claim the unction of the Holy Spirit as well as the most gifted golden voice. Some preachers who wrote out their sermons in full include the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Dr. T.T. Shields, Henry Ward Beecher,and many others. Their sermons were found in print form for years, and the majority of Spurgeon's books are indeed his sermons. Indeed, Martyn Lloyd-Jones entered the pulpit with copious notes, but preached as though those notes did not exist. Yes, I can stand and preach without notes, from time to time, but I am simply drawing on many years of preaching, if I am to be honest. Hardly extemporaneous preaching, even though to the virgin audience it may appear so.

I don't think any of us would dare enter the pulpit without asking for the power of the Holy Spirit; that is a given, in my mind. Some of us who have preached on radio know that we must submit a manuscript of our sermon in advance, at least in my experience. It may differ from place to place. These are no less preaching than the man who stands in the pulpit declaring God's word.

From my experience, I have seen men who dared to blame the Holy Spirit for their absolute mess from the pulpit, and there is no excuse for such a demonstration of disorder. I can excuse the man without learning for poor grammar or even a lack of oratorical skills, but there is no excuse for ignorance, dressed in a clergy robe and the pretense of speaking God's word.

If a man or woman will give me an hour of their precious time, it is incumbent on me to offer my very best.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Amen, couldn't have said it better myself

 

As always, Jim...well said.

 

I practice series-based preaching.
Those series come in many forms from expositional to extremely topical.
Obviously there is no prescribed method in Scripture.
One of the determining factors must be needs.
Expository preaching is easier for me, but it is not the method I feel most consistently addresses real life needs.

As far as extemporaneous preaching, I agree that extemporaneous most often equals laziness.

In my own personal experience, God does His most effective work in my heart during preparation. And usually what God lays on my heart is what challenges the people as well.

 

I have to say this - I hear a lot more nonsense, and totally unbiblical nonsense from unprepared ministers working without notes than I have ever heard from a prepared minister.

The assumption of some seems to be "If you prepare you didn't pray." My experience seems more to be, "If you didn't prepare, you didn't pray long enough."

 

Can we say then that pure or true extemporary preaching does not exist? I'm sure that it is attempted, but more times than not the preacher is "drawing on his many years of preaching" as Jim has stated. Excellent point, Jim.

 

As Bro. Jim noted, the main (but not only) meaning of extemporaneous is "performed without preparation", or what some people might call impromptu (and is not limited to sermons). But probably more people (in relation to preaching) usually have in mind a sermon delivered without notes or manuscript. Very few sermons can truly be said to be delivered without preparation, though some are. I have delivered messages totally "impromptu", with no forethought on that particular sermon. For example, following up on the discussion of the hanging of Saul's sons right at the end of a Bible study, I rose and preached a message on the text (though I wouldn't recommend everyone try it at home ). It was not nonsense nor laziness, yet very impromptu. But 30 years or so of Bible study behind it can hardly be called "without preparation", though there was none specifically for that message. And though I always preach without notes, such an incident as above has been the exception rather than the rule.

I'd like to add a few more cents. First, I would suggest that it may just be partly your experience and not something fixed that "prepared" sermons are better than "extemporaneous" ones. I'd heard lots and lots of nonsense from both, as well as good ones from both. The truth is not bound in a method of delivery. Second, I would recommend that you who prepare sermons in minute detail be careful that you not get caught up in only "studying sermons" rather than studying the Bible. While I won't say my experience is right for everyone, over the years I have come to the pleasant experience of "developing my sermons" from my Bible study, rather than studying the Bible to develop sermons. Lastly, I think the thread starter wasn't really looking for whether we preach with or without notes.

I would say most of my "sermon types" would have to be textual - points developed based on a specific text under consideration. But at the same time, there is no reason sermons can't be topical, historical, or a number of other things. We have in our area a number of preachers who have developed the idea that sermons MUST be expository. Nonsense! I don't think there are any New Testament sermons that are clearly what we call expository today. And the idea that you MUST have a text has caused some confusion, where you have a lot of gents hunting a text for a "jumping off place", never to return to it or mention it again. But if one is preaching on the topic of baptism, for example, just take the topic and study it. There doesn't have to be ONE "text".

To continue on with John's question:
I'm not pastoring a church now, but when I was preaching every Sunday twice a day, I used Sunday nights as a study through a book of the Bible. So all of these sermons were known ahead of time. But not so much so that it couldn't ever be varied, or that a visiting preacher couldn't be invited to speak. Most morning sermons were textual as well, but not book-by-book studies or series.

ONE LAST GRIPE - something that I guess may bother me more than anything other than someone preaching falsehood is the overuse of alliteration. A few use it effectively; most don't. It can make my ears shut down to hear someone drone on explaining the meaning of the word they had to wrest to get it to start with the right letter, and explaining why they chose to use it. Just preach!

Now that feels better.

 

I pastored a church in Kentucky for eight and a half years before I became an SBC (IMB) missionary to South Korea. It was tough preparing three sermons a week. A lot of Korean pastors, however, prepare eleven a week: seven for early morning prayer meetings, two for Sunday, one for Wednesday night, and one for Friday night. I think the proper interpretation of a passage is vitally important, but too many preachers get excited about their exegetical discoveries and take those points immediately to the congregation without adequately planning the effective communication of those points. It is extremely important to spend time selecting human interest stories, illustrations, etc. to make the sermon understandable. People these days have short attention spans and some of them are postmodern thinkers, and it is important for preachers to communicate effectively. I try not to look down at my notes very much so that I can keep good eye contact with the audience. Thus, I try to have as few notes as possible--maybe just a few words in the margin of my Bible. The sermon should be more than just the delivery of information. It should indeed deliver biblical truth in a logical fashion, but it should also give the listeners an opportunity to experience God Himself through the word. Many of us tell the audience what we're going to say in the introduction. Later, we go into detail for each of the points in the body. Finally, we repeat what we just said in summary fashion in the conclusion. That type of sermon is adequate for some topics, but I enjoy preaching a sermon that does not provide an answer until the climactic end of the sermon, and it allows the audience to look at various alternatives during the course of the sermon before the correct answer is revealed. Jesus used parables in which unexpected things happened, contrary to the audience's expectations. That type of preaching keeps people's attention. I am not yet a great preacher, but I think I've improved through the years.

 

Excellent point and example in C.H. Sprugeon. I read his sermons from time to time and receive much from them when I do.

Patrick

 

I like that counterpoint phrase: "If you didn't prepare, you didn't pray long enough."

Patrick

 

You always make a lot of sense to me!

Patrick

 

My Preaching and teaching are primarily Expository in style. This was true even before I went to Dallas Theological Seminary, a well-known Bible exposition school.

In the beginning, I was very heavy on "information" and light on "application," because I didn't know any better. Then someone helped me see that the "what" has little value without the "so-what." [So, what does this mean to me?]

I used to try to write out just a simple outline, but as I was writing thoughts would come to me that I didn't want to forget, so I would write them in also, whicn turned out to be an almost fully written out sermon. I never just read this, but used it for a guide to keep me on track.

For many years I could not use someone else's outline or notes, I had to dig it out completely for myself. SS lesson books or sermon outline books were totally useless to me. Now I can use them, but of course modified to meet the needs of my group.

Now, I may or may not have notes, sometimes extensive, sometimes just a few lines and/or Scripture references or written out Scriptures.
And often, I rarely even look at the notes.

One reason I like Expository preaching is that God's Word has a built-in outline.

 

The late, great Dr. Stephen Olford said----something along the lines---If you preach a sermon that is "topical"---immediately upon finishing---REPENT!!!

The definition of "Extemporaneous" - is

"done or spoken without special preparation"

Preaching withou preparation---can be done(I suppose) but it is my belief that it cannot be "sustained"-----over the "long haul"

Illustration:

"Smokin'" Joe Frazier---without any sort of preparation beforehand----may be able to box against Mohammad Ali----but I can guarantee you one thing----without preparation beforehand----

In the words of Ali(as "The Champ" would say)----"Smokin' Joe is goin' down----you hear me??? D-O-W-N!!! In less than one!!!!! You hea' me, Frazza'"

 

rlvaughn said:

I think that it all comes down to personal experience. There is no essential truth that one is better than the other. I also have heard great messages from both methods.

On the topic:

I tend to preach textually as well.

 

There is an old saying, "To thine own self be true." Never was this so true as when it is applied to preaching. Don't try to copy others. Be yourself, flaws and all.

I remember in the fifties, when a lot of preachers tried to copy Billy Graham. They mostly copied his errors. One lad in seminary was so enamoured by one of the professors, he even copied his gestures. We had a hayday in homiletics class. We could almost see him thinking about when to do the physical things. It would be like me with a strong English accent trying to emulate a Southern American accent...just can't be done.

Cheers,

Jim