Preaching advice for all my preaching buddies

Here are some great thoughts by mark Driscoll on how to work through a text for preparing and preaching:


I prayerfully choose a book of the Bible (and sometimes a thematic theological series) that bites me and plan on spending months, sometimes years, studying that book in preparation to preach it. A book like Genesis will take me over 1,000 hours of work to study, write commentary, and preach.

I continually pray for the Holy Spirit to teach me His Word as I am studying the Scripture. No amount of theological training can overcome the deficit of a preacher who is not led by the Holy Spirit to understand and proclaim the very words that He inspired.

As I study, I wrestle with tough texts as Jacob wrestled Jesus. I find that preaching tough texts such as gender roles, the flood, hell, etc., are much like driving a car into a steep curve. If you hit the brakes in fear you will lose control, but if you accelerate into the tough turns, gravity actually slingshots you through smoothly. In the pulpit, momentum and authority come through accelerating into tough texts in the study and then driving the church through them.

As I study Scripture I steep in the verses/phrases/words/pictures that bite like tea flavoring in hot water. Too often the principles of Scripture are preached when the images and word pictures are far more impacting and memorable. For this reason other movements have even adopted the biblical images so that a dove now represents peace, not the Holy Spirit, and a rainbow represents gay rights, not the Flood, by which God killed people for sin (including sexual sin). I find that sermons are memorable if the images in the Scriptures can be drilled into the imaginations of people. Perhaps the master at this was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who would not just describe a scene of Scripture, but actually put you in it through your imagination.

Only after I have spent considerable time in the naked text do I check my studies with trusted teachers to ensure that I have not come to heretical conclusions. I try not to pick up the commentaries until I have had many months in the Scripture I am preaching to ensure that I do not get lazy or simply rely on another man's walk with God. I will read it repeatedly in multiple translations, and read every decent commentary from every theological persuasion I can find to examine the book from every angle.

I live what I learn, teach it to my family, and spend a lot of time repenting of sin and seeking to obey God's Word by the grace He provides. Much of my sermon is simply explaining what the Scripture says, how that has changed my life, and how that is transforming my family and those people with whom I live in community. In this way I hope to demonstrate to my church what it means to come under Scripture; by talking about my own sins and flaws, they see me struggling through Scripture and not just preaching my tidy answers at the end of my studies. Because of this my sermons are long, anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half.

I find myself continually coming back to five questions that shape every one my sermons:

What does Scripture say?To answer this we need to check translations, do our word studies, and find out exactly what words best convey the meaning of Scripture.

What does Scripture mean?Here we need to interpret what is said, which requires commentaries, cultural background studies, etc. At this phase John Glynn's Commentary and Reference Survey is a must-have for every preacher and teacher as he rates all of the best commentaries and other reference material on various books of the Bible and theological topics.

Why do we resist this truth?Here we are assuming that people will not simply embrace God's truth but fight it with their thoughts and/or actions because they are sinners who, like Romans 1:18 says, suppress the truth. So, we attempt to predict their objections and resistance so that we can answer them and remove their resistance to get them to embrace God's truth for their life. This part of the sermon must be confrontational and often ends up in people walking out, standing up to argue, and sending nasty emails, all of which indicates you've hit a nerve like God wants you to. The real fight begins at this point and a preacher needs to come with his hands up looking for an opening much like a boxer.

Why does this matter?We need to connect all that we have said to a missional purpose for our lives, families, church, and ultimately God's glory. Something may be true but if people do not find it to also be important they tend not to act on it. On this point I like to connect Scripture a lot to the character of God, nature of the gospel, our mission in our city, and the quality of our lives both individually and collectively as a city of God within our city.

How is Jesus the hero?The Bible is one story in which Jesus is the hero. Therefore, to properly teach/preach the Bible we have to continually lift Him up as the hero and any sermon in which the focus is not on the person and work of Jesus will lack spiritual authority and power because the Holy Spirit will not bless the teaching of any hero other than Jesus.

Normalization

So I was watching some hack journalism show the other night (20/20 or Primetime, i can't remember), and the whole show was designated to "Outsiders"--people who live outside the bounds of the normal, every day folk. They have been doing this special on "Outsiders" for about a month and they have covered several different groups of people such as the Amish community, people who belong to the Children of God (a sexual cult), people who live with wild animals. In each of these shows these different groups have truly been seen as outsiders. This last week they featured moms who strip for a leaving, and couples who swing. Now i don't know if it is because my ears go to attention when these types of moral/ immoral topics are discussed, but i found each feature normalizing. It was made to appear that this things were no big deal. The interviewers asked the common questions, but there were no hard hitting questions or even the same intensity used as in the other interviews. Maybe it was just me, i don't know. Whatever the case, these moral questions are being discussed in the media marketplace and there is only one side being voiced--those who are participating in the immoral behavior. What say you?