Forget Remembering: Aiming for More in Preaching
Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:00AM It all started with a tweet:
I know what this tweet is getting at, and there's an element of truth here. But I disagree with the premise of the tweet: that our goal in hearing a sermon should be to remember the content. I replied:
@danbrubacher I'm not sure it's as important to remember a sermon as to be changed by it on the spot
And that got the ball rolling.
This is kind of a sore point for me, because I keep hearing people criticize the idea of preaching by making statements like, "I can't remember most of the sermons I've heard." Me either. I can't even remember most of my own sermons. If this is the measure of a successful sermon, then preaching is simply not worth it.
It's also wrong because I think it aims at the wrong goal. I'm teaching a course in homiletics right now. I can tell you exactly what I don't want the students to do: to get me to remember their outline and most of the content. A sermon should aim to do something, and most of the time that's not it.
There are really two types of preaching:
Preaching that delivers content and application - Preaching that aims low is focused on content. It takes the Bible and tries to communicate that material in a way that's understandable and memorable. It then gives a number of applications and sends the listener home.
If you try to do this type of preaching, then getting people to remember the sermon is important. If they don't remember your content, and if they don't apply the lessons, then your sermon has been a failure.
This type of preaching is common. I'm going to argue that it's not the type of preaching we need.
Preaching that shapes the mind and causes a shift in worldview - In his brilliant essay "The Danger of Practical Preaching" Lee Eclov writes:
The Bible spends much more time on shaping the spiritual mind than commanding particular behavior. We need far more training in the ways of grace, of spiritual perceptions, and of what God is really like, than we do in how to communicate with our spouse. Understanding the glory of Christ is far more practical than our listeners imagine. Properly preached, every sermon based on a passage of Scripture is fundamentally practical.
We don't primarily need content. We need something deeper: we need our minds reshaped to see the world the way that it really is. The content is meant to get us here. Darrell Johnson puts it this way in his excellent book The Glory of Preaching
Through text after text, sermon after sermon, the risen Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, causes a shift in worldview. He causes a shift out of any frame of reference with the self or humanity at the center to a frame of reference with the risen and ascended Jesus at the center. He causes a shift to a Christocentric vision of the cosmos, "wherein Christ is the ontological, epistemological, and soteriological focus of all human thought and experience" (Michael P. Knowles). Oh, Lord, may it be so.
The question here moves from "Can you remember my sermon?" to "Do you see the world differently?" If my worldview shifts, I'll remember that a lot longer than I'll remember mere content. And, as Eclov points out, this is much more practical in the end than preaching that only tries to be practical. Ironically, it is not a sermon that ignores content; it simply aims to do more with that content.
Here's another way to put it. Tim Keller talks about preaching that changes people in their seats. Here are some notes from a summary of his teaching:
I have to see Jesus to change me. When you see Jesus in a new way or sense his salvation this will change you on the spot...
In the sermon there is an act of worship. God takes the word of the preacher and gives a person a vision of Jesus that shapes the heart on the spot. We are looking for a divine supernatural light. You can know honey is sweet without tasting it. But we need the sense of the sweetness – give them a taste of Jesus and you will see them change on the spot.
To use that illustration from Jonathan Edwards, the goal isn't to describe the sweetness of honey, but to get them to taste it for themselves. If you describe honey, they'll forget it; if they taste the honey, they won't forget any time soon.
Here are a couple of quotes from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the subject (emphasis mine):
Much more important than the words is the Spirit, the life; in Christ we are being taught, and built up in Him. So that in a sense, though you may forget the words, you will have received the life, and you go out aware of the life of God, as it were, pulsating within you.
The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently. In this respect Edwards is, in a sense, critical of what was a prominent Puritan custom and practice. The Puritan father would catechize and question the children as to what the preacher had said. Edwards, in my opinion, has the true notion of preaching. It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit. As preachers we must not forget this. We are not merely imparters of information.
Reader Comments (9)
Amen! Preach it Daryl! Preaching is not a lesson to learn, but an exercise in propaganda for hearts and lives for the kingdom!
Absolutely, Trevor. And amen from my corner too, Darryl.
When I was taking preaching courses the climax of each sermon was supposed to be some challenging point(s) of application. This always seemed a daunting task to me. What would be the right application?Many years later I heard an interviewer ask John MacArthur why in his sermons he seldom presented an application. His response was something like this. If he preached the content of the passage with the desire to bring change to peoples lives they would apply the sermon in the way that was specifically appropriate for them. The result of this approach was that every attentive person would take from the sermon the life changing application that God directly meant for them.
This is a great article, Darryl, and I agree with so much of it. But I must raise several issues:1. Your line "But I disagree with the premise of the tweet: that our goal in hearing a sermon should be to remember the content" misses, I think, the main point of Rick Warren's comment. Clearly the context of the tweet, let alone the thrust of Warren's preaching ministry, is not about "remembering the content" for remembering's sake but with the goal of its application and incorporation into life. James 1:22 reinforces this principle with great force.2. I recoil at the forced either/or categories of preaching that you have outlined. Why can't we embrace "the genius of the and" (with thanks to Jim Collins) and say that both aspects are important? To frame it in "this type of preaching aims low" but "this type of preaching aims high" is not overly helpful. It creates an unnecessary dichotomy.3. Jesus' marching orders include a call for us to teach disciples to obey everything that he has commanded (Matthew 28:20). Surely this includes the kind of "practical application" in preaching that you diminish, not just preaching that "shapes the mind." Again, I would argue for both.4. I would suggest that a big part of helping people "see the world differently" (and then hopefully living differently) is in providing opportunities for dialogue and interaction with the preaching content. As I see it, this was the main emphasis in the original tweet. It was really a sales pitch for sermon-based small groups more than it was a commentary on preaching styles.I could go on but will end it here. Thanks for your thoughtful approach to the great task of preaching, and thanks for taking the time to put more of your thoughts down here for us to interact with.I think that Paul's words in Philippians 1:18 are worth mentioning: "The important thing is that in every way . . . Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." So whether it be content/applicational preaching or mind/worldview preaching -- or better yet, BOTH -- let's keep the main thing the main thing.
Dan:Thanks for stimulating this conversation, and for leaving a comment that's stimulating and thoughtful.1. A tweet can't say anything, so I need to cut Warren some slack. But you have to admit that the emphasis of the tweet is on remembering sermons. Yes, it's for a deeper purpose, but there's no mistaking the assumption that remembering sermons is important.2. I agree with you that there is an approach to preaching that focuses on content that leads to a shift in worldview. I tried to make this clear in my post, and may not have succeeded. I don't want to create a false dichotomy.But I'd still argue that there is a qualitative difference between preaching that aims at being remembered and applied, and preaching that aims at shifting the worldview. I know; I've done both. It may be more accurate to say that both head out on the same road, and one stops too soon, rather than saying they're two different roads.3. I don't want to diminish practical application at all. Not a bit! I want to diminish practical application that does not arise out of a shift in the way we think and see the world. Preaching that goes directly to the practical without causing us to see things differently first doesn't follow the biblical pattern, and, I would argue, doesn't lead to lasting change.4. Amen!Appreciate your interaction here. I think it's an important issue. It reminds me of dating my wife before we got married: I'm sure I forget 94% of our dates, but they sure made a difference. I'm happy if people forget most of my sermons, but develop a deeper relationship with Jesus because they encounter him in the preached Word every week.
Turn this blog into an article . . . do it.
Darryl,I've enjoyed this interaction very much. I'm sorry that I won't be around next Wednesday for your presentation on preaching to the L&DA as I will be on vacation.I had a few more follow-up comments:a. I was struck with the biblical theology of the word "remember." In most cases in the Old Testament, it means to "remember the past in such a way that the facts remembered have some impact on the present" (Elwell, "Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology," p. 668). Furthermore, "theological meaning of remembrance that builds on the Old Testament is clear in about one-third of the occurrences in the New Testament" (Elwell, 669). I say all this to say: Remembering is important. I don't see how you can do justice to the biblical theology of the concept without recognizing this. It is recollection that leads to action. I humbly suggest, once again, that this is what Warren had in mind. (And me too.)b. I was thinking that it might be helpful to provide some examples of your own preaching that aimed at being remembered and applied, and that aimed at shifting the worldview. You mentioned that you have done both. Perhaps you could do a follow-up with links to illustrations of both kinds.c. I agree with your comments, "I want to diminish practical application that does not arise out of a shift in the way we think and see the world." Well said. So one end of the spectrum to be avoided is "preaching that goes directly to the practical without causing us to see things differently first." But would you agree that preaching that emphasizes a change in thinking/shift in worldview without also providing some tangible ways for it to be lived out--at least as a norm--is equally problematic? While there are certainly many preachers who fall prey to the former tendency in their preaching, I think that there are plenty who also succumb to the latter tendency.d. Yeah, I definitely think that this topic is worth an article. Would it work for "Christian Week," or is it too specialized?Thanks again for putting this out there for public consumption. I have thoroughly enjoyed it.
Hi Dan,I was listening to the first CD in Keller's Preaching to the Heart lecture series at Gordon-Conwell again last night, and realized that he covers the topic a lot better than I do.I think the biblical concept of remembering is exactly right, and probably a little more nuanced than ours. The thing I'm addressing is the idea of preaching as a content dump, and appealing to people to take that content, understand it, and then implement a list of to-do's as a result. A lot of preaching, in my experience, does this.The biblical concept of remembering seems to be about much more than simply understanding. There's a cognitive aspect to be sure, but it seems to be much more about bringing to mind what God has done and living in light of that. If that's what you or Warren mean about remembering, I'm all for that.It may sound subtle, but there's a real difference. Week after week I want people to remember what God has done and encounter him. They won't remember most of my content no matter what small groups they attend, but if they encounter God and the gospel and change in how they see the world, my job is done.I guess I'd put it this way: remembering sermon content doesn't change people. Encountering God and experiencing the power of the gospel through the sermon content does. One is teaching to the intellect; the other is preaching to the heart (the biblical understanding of the heart as the motivational structure of the person's life).An example: last night I heard a student speak on Romans 12:1-2. For most of the message she developed the content. It was good, but I guarantee you that I have forgotten most of it already. In the conclusion she got to what Keller calls the motivational structures of our hearts, and brought in Jesus. All of a sudden the message stopped being a content dump and it turned into a worship service in which we were all moved by what Jesus had done, and we were all eager to obey as a result. The real power in the message came as we met Jesus. She used the content to get us there. Again, Keller describes this well in that CD which I'm happy to loan to you.Yes, I'm a little leery of preaching that doesn't apply - although I think Haddon Robinson is right that more heresy is preached in application than in the message itself. Application is important as long as it's not a laundry list of do's and don'ts disconnected from the gospel.I may work on an article, although probably not for CW.Thanks for continuing the conversation!
Thanks, Darryl, for making me think more about the practice and purpose of my preaching. This post, and the ensuing meta has been extremely helpful.