A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. W. Stanford Reid is Emeritus Professor of History, University of Guelph, and the author of numerous historical books.
How often today one hears the comment concerning a sermon, that while it was quite biblical and evangelical, it was very hard to remember! As one person recently put it: “It was hard to hang on to.” Although one might well agree with everything which the preacher said while the preaching was taking place, after an hour or so it is hard, if not impossible, to recall it. So often this is because the sermon is not presented in a systematic form. And if it is, some of the congregation will object that it was a lecture rather than a sermon. The question then arises as to what a sermon is supposed to be.
When we go back to the Reformation of the sixteenth century out of which the Reformed and Presbyterian churches have come, we find that Calvin, Knox and the other reformers, basing their views on the New Testament, held that the church was to be governed by elders of which there were two types. One was called “ruling elders”, for it was their responsibility to see that the members of the church conducted themselves as Christians in their everyday walk, and also to make sure that the church as a whole fulfilled Christ’s requirements for his people in the world. But there was another type of elder, who while being “ruling elders” were also “teaching elders”. These had the responsibility of teaching the congregations, that they might be well instructed in both doctrine and practice.
A teaching elder, therefore, because of his responsibilities was required to have a training in the doctrines of the Christian faith. He was in no sense to be a mere amateur, but was to be one well-grounded and instructed in the meaning of the faith and also able to apply its requirements to everyday life. Furthermore, he was expected to be one who could present the Christian teachings effectively and clearly so that those who heard him whether in a private conversation or in a public presentation, would be able to understand and apply the teachings to themselves. By this means Christianity would become known in the world and many brought into the Kingdom of God.
As one looks at the situation today, however, one finds that many people who claim to be Christians have very little knowledge of what the Christian faith is and how it should be applied in everyday life. The old style catechism class which used to be an important medium for the training up of the young in the faith has in most churches disappeared. Bible study groups which used to be quite common in many churches also seem to have gone the way of catechism classes. And even if they have not, so often they give very little systematic training in Christian doctrine and often very little idea of how the Christian should live in the world. Frequently the attitude is that people really do not want to think about such things as they have enough to occupy their minds without having to become “theologians”.
But is not this lack of knowledge among Christians one of the reasons today that there has been such a decline of Christian influence in western society in the last two or three generations? The lack of Christian influence shows itself in the general ignoring and rejection of Christian moral standards in our society. Both public and private morals have changed radically over the past few decades, for now it is held generally that everyone should do what is right in .his or her own eyes. Every person is now a law unto his or her own self. One only has to read the newspaper to see what the effect of this attitude is. Christian teaching, in both matters of faith and life have to a large extent disappeared from the thinking of much of western society.
How should Christians respond to such a situation? It would seem that the primary requirement is that Christians must be trained in order that they may take a truly Christian stance in society. To accomplish this, they must first of all be instructed in the meaning of the Christian faith. In other words, to use a term which is often regarded as bad, they must be indoctrinated, that is, taught Christian doctrine. Furthermore, they must also be taught how to apply their Christian faith in everyday life. They must be shown how their Christian beliefs are applicable to the lives which they live in the world. They must be brought to realize that their Christian faith is not just a matter of one-day-a-week religion, but that Christ, their Lord, is also their Lord from Monday to Saturday. This means that one of the big needs today for the church is systematic instruction.
This is the preacher’s responsibility. He is a teaching elder, and this should be his constant duty and work. He is not just an exhorter. In the early days of the Reformation there were such individuals, but they gave no instruction. In the Reformed church in Scotland, there were readers who would read other men’s sermons to congregations. But the preacher is more than these, although it is hard at time to see how they differ, because so often sermons consist mostly of exhortation or are so filled with quotations that it is hard to know what the preacher is actually presenting of his or her own thought. Nor is the preacher merely to seek to make people “feel good”. Sometimes it may even be necessary to make a congregation “feel bad” in order to stimulate them to action in their faith or in their lives.
What then should be the characteristics of preaching that it may be good teaching? As one thinks of the needs of Christians one must say that it should above all things be systematic. This means that the individual sermon which has no relationship to what was preached the Sunday before or will be preached the Sunday after, although it may be biblical and evangelical, does not have the impact it might if it were related to what precedes and to what follows. As we turn to the New Testament, from what we can learn of preaching there, it would seem that the apostles systematically expounded the Old Testament and set forth its relation to Christ’s work as Saviour and Lord. And when we look at the Reformation, we find that the reformers were very insistent on preaching a series of related sermons. Calvin, for instance, would preach all the way through a biblical book, or would preach on a series of doctrines in order to give systematic instruction. As we come down to more modern times we find that preachers such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the most effective contemporary preachers have followed the same practice.
In this way they have sought to and actually have given training in the understanding of the Bible. But what is more, they have brought biblical teachings together in a systematic fashion so that their hearers are able to see the great doctrines of the Christian faith, which become the basis for Christian thinking and understanding. At the same time and by the same means, they are also enable to see and understand how their Christian faith should influence their ways of living, not only that they might show by their lives what it means to be a Christian, but that they might bring those who know not Christ to ask what is the mainspring of their lives, in order that they might have an opportunity to point them to him who is their Lord.
In order to do this, however, not only is a series of sermons one of the best ways of teaching, each sermon must also be systematic in its presentation. Each sermon is a teaching unit. This means that a mere collection of generalizations is not enough. Nor is it sufficient to present doctrine unless there is also some clear-cut means of enabling the hearers to remember what has been said. Most hearers are not carrying notebooks in which they take down what the preacher says. It might be well, of course, if such note-taking were part of the listening process, although it might be that people would be so interested in taking notes that they would miss many of the nuances of the sermon. The question is then: how can I preach so that the congregation can take away, remember and discuss what I have said from the pulpit?
One technique in this type of preaching is for the preacher to indicate how the text being used comes as part of a story. This means that he will have to go back and recount the story in order that the background may be clearly understood. Then the relation of the verse or verses upon which the sermon is based must be clearly seen, and following this the text in its storycontext must be related to the work of Christ as Saviour and Lord. While all texts would not fit into this pattern, yet there are many which do and when the congregation goes home after the service, they are able to remember the sermon because of its story-context.
Another technique which has been employed down through the ages is that of the use of “points”. By this means the preacher sets forth the two or three truths involved in the text. If these are worked out logically and systematically, the sermon will have a logical development which those who hear it will be readily able to understand and carry home with them. They can see the systematic pattern and the logical application of the text. This means also that the preacher will have to stick to the text, and not use it, as one professor used to say, as a diving board from which he jumps but to which he never returns. Such systematic, textual preaching will train up those who hear the sermons in the knowledge of the Christian faith which will be effective in all aspects of their lives.
Now, there will be, I know, objections to what I have said. For one thing, very often people will object, as one woman once said to me after I had preached on the doctrine of the Trinity: “I did not enjoy that sermon at all. I had to keep thinking all the way through it.” Also there will be those who object to the effective application of the sermon, as it will hit them where it hurts the most. This is all summed up in the fact that some who attend church seem to come more for entertainment than anything else. As one person put it to me some time ago, she had decided to go to a certain church because the music was so beautiful, but when I asked about the preaching, she did not have any comment to make. Apparently she did not listen to the sermon!
On the other hand, there are those, and it would seem a majority, who favour what I have said. One minister who did much preaching of series and whose sermons were always well-organized with three or four points, used to say that when he commenced a series, almost immediately the attendance at church increased by about ten per cent. Many Christian people are anxious to learn more about their faith and how it may be applied. The trouble is that so often they come away from church with the feeling that they have heard what I call a baseball sermon: no hits, no runs, no errors, and as one man who heard me use this phrase added, “Game called on account of fog.” Christians in this day are looking for help and instruction in the faith that they may be strengthened to carry on in this world as Christ’s disciples.
The preacher is the teaching elder. This means that he or she must elucidate the meaning of what it is to be a Christian seven days a week in the knowledge and confidence of Christ’s lordship, and to the glory of God.