Who has the I-Beam DVD and what do you think about it?
A friend of mine has it and loaned it to me. IMHO it's just an over priced homiletics video. Go to toast masters to improve your speaking skills and they'll show you how to craft speeches (i.e. sermons) too. It's cheaper too and you get to meet other people too. Don't get me wrong I like MO but a homiletics video for that price, no way! I don't care how much lighting, sound and production equipment was involved, it's just plain too much. Just buy the booklet and you'll be fine. No real science to it.
For the sake of savings!
Giovanni Baggio
With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion, I find the I-Beam to be helpful and worthy of a spot in my collection. However, if the cost is prohibitive for you, I recommend the I-Beam workbook which has the content without Mo actually teaching it via DVD for 7 hours... you can have that for $29.95.
I have the workbook and agree that it is good. You will have to get used to adding all words that begin with the letter 'I' being added to your vocabulary.[:)] But, it has good info.
I have it and have found it very useful for planing Expository Sermons. If you have read Haddon Robinson then this takes it further and helps you to find the "Big Idea" of a passage and develop that into a "Homiletical idea". I only preach very infrequently and used the I-Beam approach for my last sermon which really helped me.
I find the alliterated sections confusing and had to convert them back to phrases I was familiar with. But no big deal.
For me this was money well spent.
The alliteration alters all allusion to any abiltiyt to answer all available ....
You get the idea. Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word. It can be gimmicky and most passages dont' really give us for M words about grace. If your lucky there may be 3 and you have to mange the meaning of the fourth sub-idea to make it fit.
People in the pew don't care. Only other preaches find it cool and therefore we are writing not to the honor and glory of God but our own cleverness.
Better mnemonic tools include visual illustrations like using the rooms of a home to illustrate various ideas about family or the ingredients of something like bread to show our discipleship traits that please God.
by the way most biblical passages have one idea and we would do better to expound on one idea with our sermon structure being intro, show why the passage is needed, explain the idea, illustrate it, argue for its truthfulness and show the "So What?" of application before driving it home with a good appeal at the end.
Great method of preaching that is simple for people to remember!
Put away the I-beam and present the text the way normal people think.
[Y]
Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word. It can be gimmicky and most passages dont' really give us for M words about grace. If your lucky there may be 3 and you have to mange the meaning of the fourth sub-idea to make it fit.
I agree completely, but the I-Beam doesn't encourage us to alliterate sermon points. It has alliteration in the sections of the I-Beam, which is confusing, which was the point I was making.
by the way most biblical passages have one idea and we would do better to expound on one idea with our sermon structure being intro, show why the passage is needed, explain the idea, illustrate it, argue for its truthfulness and show the "So What?" of application before driving it home with a good appeal at the end
This is exactly what the I-Beam teaches isn't it? or have I missed something?
Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word. It can be gimmicky
Only other preaches find it cool and therefore we are writing not to the honor and glory of God but our own cleverness.
IMHO (or NSHO) You are absolutely correct.
by the way most biblical passages have one idea and we would do better to expound on one idea with our sermon structure
Exceedingly good point
You get the idea. Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word.
Maybe not always, but definitely sometimes.
Calvinism's TULIP
and
my grade school teacher's "A Rat In Tom's House May Eat Tom's Ice Cream" = arithmetic.
To be fair to Morris, The I-Beam of Message Building is intended for preachers. (We all did agree that preachers like little gimmicks like alliteration, didn't we? So Morris's use of it might be smart. [:D]) He is not saying you have to alliterate your sermons. I don't fault his presentation any more than Warren Wiersbe titling of the "Be" series
The alliteration alters all allusion to any abiltiyt to answer all available .... You get the idea. Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word. It can be gimmicky and most passages dont' really give us for M words about grace. If your lucky there may be 3 and you have to mange the meaning of the fourth sub-idea to make it fit. People in the pew don't care. Only other preaches find it cool and therefore we are writing not to the honor and glory of God but our own cleverness. Better mnemonic tools include visual illustrations like using the rooms of a home to illustrate various ideas about family or the ingredients of something like bread to show our discipleship traits that please God. by the way most biblical passages have one idea and we would do better to expound on one idea with our sermon structure being intro, show why the passage is needed, explain the idea, illustrate it, argue for its truthfulness and show the "So What?" of application before driving it home with a good appeal at the end. Great method of preaching that is simple for people to remember! Put away the I-beam and present the text the way normal people think.
Thank you thank you thank you, Kevin!
I have always felt guilty because that way does not work for me. I think I sound stupid when I try.
Thanks for this... really.
Jerry
You get the idea. Alliteration seldom helps us communicate the word. Maybe not always, but definitely sometimes. Calvinism's TULIP
ST - I think that you have alliteration confused with something else. Alliteration is the use of the same letter or sound. This is the "5 'R's' of evangelism" or the "3 'B's' of parenting." There is a genre of preaching which emphasizes the use of alliteration. I am not opposed to the device (it can be helpful), but in my experience many preachers were taught they needed to and it becomes forced. Plus, as Kevin mentioned, Preaching should really be about ONE thing, not THREE alliterated ones.
ST - I think that you have alliteration confused with something else.
I think you be right! I am just a little alliterate today. I have been baby-sitting my granddaughter while I try to put together a Logos Credit order. I swung by the forums and posted without much thought........(so what is new about that? [:P] ) I will bow out acronymoniously [;)]
ps: My point about Mo using the "I"s still applies; it is a hook/gimmick for preachers (that special breed that like gimmicks) It was not an instruction in cutesy sermon delivery.
back to that order....[:D]
To actually respond to the question:
I find Morris's method to be another viable way to build a message. If you are used to a certain way and are comfortable with it, you might not want it. But I would recommend you get the manual and if you like the method and can afford the DVD then go for it. Morris is a good teacher but if you have no interest or use for what the subject is then the DVD is quite expensive. If you like having multiple options then it is definitely worth a look.
I was in Toastmasters and the Kiwanis and took the Dale Carnegie course. All of them help with public speaking but they don't teach you how to craft a sermon. (Well, maybe a 2 minute sermon.)
I think you be right! I am just a little alliterate today.
LOL! [:D]
But his alliteration makes it nearly impossible for dolts like me to remember so that I dont' have to use the book to work on every message. A good system will be stored in you mind so you no longer need the crutch. It also makes every sermon sound the same and your preaching gets predictable.
The best tool is to follow the text. When it is didactic as in Pauls letters, three points may work if the text has a subject completed structure. It might also be better to follow the one idea explained illustrated applied appeal approach. If the sermon is a store and you don't tell the story you're not expository. If the sermon is a piece of wisdom literature you have to put for the main point. A sermon with three points based on a parable misses what a parable is and is not expository. A sermon on a psalm should be more poetic in tone. Expository preaching is more than just getting the ideas out. The I-Beam misses that.
The alliteration alters all allusion to any abiltiyt to answer all available
The only preacher that I thought used aliteration masterfully and effectively was Adrian Rogers. Alas, I am no Adrian Rogers. Unless you are, it is distracting and not very helpful, in my opinion.
For what it is worth, I have the DVD and have view it. I have changed the way that i prepare and preach. It was almost immediately evident to the congregation i serve. I have received numerous unsolicited compliments regarding how much better the sermons are and how much more understandable the have been.
I can say for me; they have made me a better preacher and therefore, a better pastor. Expensive yes, but in my opinion, worth every penny. One of the best investments i have ever made.
One thing i have discovered is that i spend a lot more time in preparing my messages than i did before.
The best tool is to follow the text
Kevin
I agree with you. Being the seasoned preacher that you are, I wouldn't expect you to use resources like "I-Bem". For a beginner like me it has been very useful and very practical. I don't remember any suggestion in the "I-Beam" that you need 3 points in a sermon. In fact many of the examples use more than 3 points from what I remember.
The I-Beam is a modification of the "Keyword" method of preaching which I know is not applicable to many literary genres of the Bible, but I found it very helpful and what I have learned I can now build upon. It encouraged me to be "Faithful to the Text and Functional for Today"
You can't master it all at once and have to start somewhere.
Anyway, it is not my job to defend the "I-Beam", just sharing my experiences. I am sure it is not for everyone, but for me it was money well spent.
Blessings in Christ
Andrew
To all who find it useful and helpful, awesome.
Let me however, suggest a few other resources that I think will achieve the same results with a better method.
1. Christ Centered Preaching by Chapel
2. Biblical Preaching by Haddon Robinson (the best preaching text out there, but chapel's updates the concepts a bit so I put this second
3. 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching by McDill if you really like the I-beam's keyword apprach. This also will teach you how to do inductive Bible study in a systematic way.
BTW I will be teaching preaching starting Feb. 1 to a small group of laymen. Pray that God will use it in their lives and I will not get any of the credit. I've been thinking about streaming the class for the edification of others.
Thanks Kevin - I have 1. and 2. which are both great. I will take a look at 3.
To all who find it useful and helpful, awesome. Let me however, suggest a few other resources that I think will achieve the same results with a better method. 1. Christ Centered Preaching by Chapel 2. Biblical Preaching by Haddon Robinson (the best preaching text out there, but chapel's updates the concepts a bit so I put this second 3. 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching by McDill if you really like the I-beam's keyword apprach. This also will teach you how to do inductive Bible study in a systematic way. BTW I will be teaching preaching starting Feb. 1 to a small group of laymen. Pray that God will use it in their lives and I will not get any of the credit. I've been thinking about streaming the class for the edification of others.
I have the I-Beam DVD and found it to be a good refresher course on homiletics; and it did give some structure to my study habits (sermon prep). Kevin offers some good suggestions. I have found McDill's book to be very good. IMHO you will find everything there that you need to improve your sermon structure.
To all who find it useful and helpful, awesome. Let me however, suggest a few other resources that I think will achieve the same results with a better method.
At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method [:S] ?
I like having as many good tools in my toolbox as I can. I may learn something from Morris Proctor, another tool from Stephen Olford, another from Adrian Rodgers (We need his stuff in Logos!), and even this book.
Thanks for your suggestions. I have the first two and the third looks worthwhile. Your preaching class would also be helpful.
I'd have to agree with you on Haddon. I picked it up in the Preachers Collection.
If you were to stream the class would it also be recorded for later viewing?
At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method ?
[:|]
Don't tell John MacArthur that! lol (read)
EDIT: If you haven't read the book I linked...it also is a pretty good preaching resource.
I have '12 Essential Skills'. Is very good...
I would strenuously disagree. Jim Shaddix has a book called Passion Driving Sermon that explains better than anyone why expository is the best way to go. If the text does not drive the message it is human centered and therefore not as authoritative and he even said less likely to come with the blessing of God. I agree.
As for Stephen Olford's book, I was required to read that book when I did my D. Min. with Haddon Robinson. Haddon told us about his experience of setting up the doctoral program at Gordon Conwell. The people with the accrediting agency told him that he wasn't including enough good reading material. He asked why and they said a Doctorate required more stringent demans so he should require a larger number of pages. He asked, "what if I don't think there are that many good pages of reading on the subject?" They told him it didn't matter. They needed to see more pages. He asked if he could then include comic books just to fulfill their requirement. They laughed and said it had to be on topic. So he said to fulfill the requirement he added the longest book he could find published recently on the topic of preaching even though he didn't think it was worthy of assignment. Guess which book was the longest book assigned? [:D]
Heretic [6]
PS: I agree with Kevin
why expository is the best way to go. If the text does not drive the message it is human centered and therefore not as authoritative
Okay, I don't understand. Can't sermons be text driven without be expository? And are sermons ever authoritative? There's some premise here that I don't recognize that seems like it might be a key to understanding some miscommunications on this forum.
In the words of the infamous Inigo Montoya: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
I think if you asked 10 preachers what "expository preaching" meant, you would get 12 different answers. [:P]
Yeah, Kevin! I was hoping the same thing. Remembering to log on for live streaming is not something I do well.
Jim Shaddix has a book called Passion Driving Sermon that explains better than anyone why expository is the best way to go. If the text does not drive the message it is human centered and therefore not as authoritative and he even said less likely to come with the blessing of God. I agree.
And I understand this thinking. I just believe the authority rests in the whole word of God and not just a human interpretation of it, no matter how great that human is as a communicator. You know - let the Bible be it's own commentary, Life-application, inductive Bible study, and all that? There are many Logos users who would fit better into the mold of an Isagogical, Categorical, Exegetical teaching style. Some would say it is not preaching at all while others would say it is another name for Expository preaching. I agree we would probably not all agree on the definition of expository preaching.
edit: Examples of "ICE" preachers are R.B. Thieme, Jack Ballinger, Rory Clark, Mike Lemmon, Ken Reed
I personally have strongly preferred expository preaching all of my life. Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative. I have discovered rich insight in many devotional works. I look at the Bible and see God has chosen to communicate with us in many different styles. I am comfortable with learning from any of them.
[:D] Here was a preacher who had a 50 year vision for preaching: The Decades of Heinrich Bullinger (4 vols.)
Now that is faith in action!
There's some premise here that I don't recognize that seems like it might be a key to understanding some miscommunications on this forum.
Yes, an unspoken premise. [:#] I would call it the William Shatner School of Homiletics. And you can get stoned for advocating the other methods William Broadus mentions in chapter 10 of On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons
Seriously, I believe it is an intrinsic part of evangelical culture. I probably prefer it because I was raised on it. Many will argue from a doctrinal belief that it is the only approved method to receive a message from the pulpit.
... I would call it the William Shatner school of Homiletics....
I believe this method has merit, especially if one is preaching on Ham...
I personally have strongly preferred expository preaching all of my life. Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative. I have discovered rich insight in many devotional works once. I look at the Bible and see God has chosen to communicate with us in many different styles. I am comfortable with learning from any of them.
I have heard/read many topical and devotional messages that were expository.
I can agree with that. But let us not define "expository" or "devotional." [:#] I'd like to remain in agreement. [^o)]
At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method ? I would strenuously disagree. Jim Shaddix has a book called Passion Driving Sermon that explains better than anyone why expository is the best way to go. If the text does not drive the message it is human centered and therefore not as authoritative and he even said less likely to come with the blessing of God. I agree. As for Stephen Olford's book, I was required to read that book when I did my D. Min. with Haddon Robinson. Haddon told us about his experience of setting up the doctoral program at Gordon Conwell. The people with the accrediting agency told him that he wasn't including enough good reading material. He asked why and they said a Doctorate required more stringent demans so he should require a larger number of pages. He asked, "what if I don't think there are that many good pages of reading on the subject?" They told him it didn't matter. They needed to see more pages. He asked if he could then include comic books just to fulfill their requirement. They laughed and said it had to be on topic. So he said to fulfill the requirement he added the longest book he could find published recently on the topic of preaching even though he didn't think it was worthy of assignment. Guess which book was the longest book assigned?
As for Stephen Olford's book, I was required to read that book when I did my D. Min. with Haddon Robinson. Haddon told us about his experience of setting up the doctoral program at Gordon Conwell. The people with the accrediting agency told him that he wasn't including enough good reading material. He asked why and they said a Doctorate required more stringent demans so he should require a larger number of pages. He asked, "what if I don't think there are that many good pages of reading on the subject?" They told him it didn't matter. They needed to see more pages. He asked if he could then include comic books just to fulfill their requirement. They laughed and said it had to be on topic. So he said to fulfill the requirement he added the longest book he could find published recently on the topic of preaching even though he didn't think it was worthy of assignment. Guess which book was the longest book assigned?
Fascinating story. What book was it?
Was it "Essays On The Preaching Required By The Times: And The Best Methods Of Obtaining It : With Reminiscences And Illustrations Of Methodist Preaching: Including Rules For Extemporaneous Preaching, And Characteristic Sketches Of Olin, Fisk, Bascom, Cookman, Summerfield, And Other Noted Extemporaneous Preachers" by Abel Stevens?
"Essays On The Preaching Required By The Times: And The Best Methods Of Obtaining It : With Reminiscences And Illustrations Of Methodist Preaching: Including Rules For Extemporaneous Preaching, And Characteristic Sketches Of Olin, Fisk, Bascom, Cookman, Summerfield, And Other Noted Extemporaneous Preachers"
Wow! That takes the cake. My wife started laughing before I got through reading the title out loud.
"Essays On The Preaching Required By The Times: And The Best Methods Of Obtaining It : With Reminiscences And Illustrations Of Methodist Preaching: Including Rules For Extemporaneous Preaching, And Characteristic Sketches Of Olin, Fisk, Bascom, Cookman, Summerfield, And Other Noted Extemporaneous Preachers" Wow! That takes the cake. My wife started laughing before I got through reading the title out loud.
Looks like the book is free online. I thought it was a funny title, too.
Here is a quote from page 94:
Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative.
I would submit that one can preach devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative lessons in an expository way.
Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative. I would submit that one can preach devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative lessons in an expository way.
I do not disagree. I only said expository was not the only method. We can certainly combine and balance styles and methods. Most preachers do. I just believe some audiences (usually outside of a church setting) are better reached with an other-than-expository delivery. From the pulpit I think the "Apostle's doctrine" should be proclaimed, in an expository fashion. added: Expository is the only method I was taught.
At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method ? I would strenuously disagree. Jim Shaddix has a book called Passion Driving Sermon that explains better than anyone why expository is the best way to go.
Kevin may agree with Jim Shaddix that expository preaching is the best way to go, but Jim Shaddix agrees with me that there are other methods. [:D]
( I told you a fellow can get stoned for saying that in a forum full of preachers. )
There are many methods of preaching, some of which are expository and some are not. For example announcing a text and reading it and then taking one word from that text and crafting a whole sermon around that one word. That's a method of preaching, but not expository.
Another - take a sermon idea based on the message inductively discovered from a passage of scripture and then craft a well-written narrative message that communicates the main idea of that passage in a way that faithfully and clearly reveals that discovered message but without every again referring to the actual text of the message. That is expository because it does one thing - it exposes the true meaning of the text.
Some people think that expository preaching is doing a running, verse-by-verse commentary on the passage. Wrong! That's not even praching. It may be a valid way to teach, but it is dealing with the text in a granular fashion. I say that validly biblical expository preaching must deal with the test in particular, in context of the chapter, book, Testament and Bible. If any of those are missing, then you miss the meaning of the text and case to expose the meaning to your congregation.
The reason I say expository preaching is the only authoritative preaching is because it is exposing the meaning of the text. I believe in Biblical authority and plenary verbal inspiration. God revealed the text and guided the writing of the words. He wants us to understand what they mean by understanding what they originally meant and then our job as preachers is to help our people understand how it means the same thing to us in a very different setting. That is the task of the expository preacher.
EDIT: By the way, I'm not saying the I-Beam method is not expository. I'm just saying that the way it teaches you to get at the expository message is clumsy because of all the confusing alliteration. There are far simpler and more effective methods of getting at the meaning of a text that are easier to remember and therefore consistently use in your own study.
I really like Wayne McDill's book for the first three chapters.
1. Do a sentence diagram of the text.
2. Make observations of the text
3. Ask interpretive questions
I do all of that without every opening a commentary or language study tool. I then open those to answer the questions of part 3 and confirm my observations in part 2.
I like Haddon Robinson's book for how he pushes you to come with a single Big Idea to communicate and then he helps you decide what the best structure you should use to communicate the text - key word approach, subject completed approach, narrative etc.
I like Chapel's book because it kind weds the two but also helps you focus on context.
Finally, McDill's book has a chapter on exploring natural analogies, that if you used it alone it would be worth the price.
And the book that was just added (see my previous post) for filler was Olfords book.
The reason I say expository preaching is the only authoritative preaching is because it is exposing the meaning of the text.
Kevin,
I am not a preacher and in my church, topical sermons are often preached. Often, when I read about "expository preaching" it seems to me to relate to the verse by verse commentary thing you don't even consider preaching, or it asks for preaching "through" a book. I'm not clear if this is part of the definition.
While I understand the reasoning behind "exposing the meaning of the text" as oppesed e.g. to prooftexting the preacher's ideas about a current political or cultural subject, is it not often the case that several texts stand in relation to each other and only together lead to exposure of the teaching of "the whole scripture"? Is this what you mean with "the context of ... Bible" ? Will I find answers on this in your #1 suggestion, "Christ-centered preaching" (have bought it these days but not started reading) or do we all need to wait for your videos to be produced?
When someone asked about resources for topical preaching, no specific books in Logos came up. Rosie pointed towards a book that's not in Logos ( http://community.logos.com/forums/p/44532/331629.aspx#331629 ) by Donald Allen - can you recommend a resource that shows how to preach topically without losing the expository, biblical authority focus as you explained it (if such is possible)?
Mick
Some people think that expository preaching is doing a running, verse-by-verse commentary on the passage. Wrong! That's not even praching.
Agree. Unfortunately, my present pastor has fallen into that rut.
Will get that book on your recommendation and the fact that I enjoyed fellowship with his son several years ago (i.e., we played golf together [8-|])
I like and understand most of your post above. I really would like to watch your class. I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method?
Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey. I know it has one meaning but I suppose a preacher can preach forever on the book of Romans and it will still benefit the audience.
I agree the verse by verse is teaching rather than preaching. I have heard Sunday School lessons preached and I have heard sermons taught. Not every preacher can teach well and most Sunday School teachers can not preach (and the vast majority of preachers can not sing! [8])
I do know what proof-texting is and recognize it quickly most times it is done. I still say I have heard many topical sermons, using a plurality of texts that remain faithful to what the texts really say. As NewbieMic asks, isn't there something to be said for considering the whole counsel of the Bible when conveying a particular message? (rhetoric here, I believe in plenary inspiration too.)
I really, really, really hope you can record your classes for later viewing and share them with us.
I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method?
I don't want to say that it is the only legitimate method. Jesus didn't do it and he's as legit as you can get. But he also was breathing scripture as he spoke so there's a big difference and saying his method of speaking is normative is a fallacy. If that's the case then we should be calling people who disagree with us broods of vipers and healing all the time.
What I mean when I say authoritative is this. If I'm preaching a text and I'm giving my opnion in a topical sermon that jumps off from the word grace in Eph 2:8 that has an outline that says Grace is Godly, Grace is Glorious, Grace is Giving, Grace is Gutsy etc., then I'm giving people my opinions. It may be biblical, but its not authoritative until I can point to a text that clearly says what I'm saying. If I use three passages then I have to do the painstaking work of studying all three of those passages to make sure I'm getting it right and even then I can fail.
When pick one passage and do the work to get it right, I am more likely to be right because instead of having 10-12 hours this week to work on three texts I have that time to work on one. I can show my congregation where I'm getting the truths from the text. They will say, "He's right because I see that God said it." If I don't get my point(s) or idea(s) from the text then its my word they have to trust. That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me. Or at least they shouldn't and no ground on which to do so. The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God.
Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey.
Haddon Robinson explained it to us in class this way. The text has one meaning that God wanted to convey through the author. Each passage has one basic idea. My job is to inductively discover that idea and then communicate it in a way that will be interesting, appealing and inspiring. That's the job of the preacher.
He said, you have a target to hit. There's a bulls eye for each text. You're doing a good job if you hit the target and your message is close to the central meaning of the text. Too many sermons totally miss the mark.
Example. Matthew 18 - "when two or three are gathered together in my name there I will be also"
What's that about? If you don't study the passgage carefully by itself, then in context, you think its about God's presence in community worship. Problem is that isn't what the passage is about at all. It's about two agreeing about church discipline and if we agree together about how to redemptively discipline someone in unrepentant sin, then God joins with us.
If you preach that passage in a sermon about prayer you missed the target. If you preach that sermon about church discipline you hit it. If you preach it about redemptive church discipline and the partnership with God in dealing with brothers/sisters who fall away, then you hit he bulls eye.
I"ve heard sermons about that text that say something like ...
Prayer is done in partnership with others
Prayer is communion with God
Prayer is unifying believers
All sound good, but none of those are in that text.
I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method? I don't want to say that it is the only legitimate method. Jesus didn't do it and he's as legit as you can get. But he also was breathing scripture as he spoke so there's a big difference and saying his method of speaking is normative is a fallacy. If that's the case then we should be calling people who disagree with us broods of vipers and healing all the time. What I mean when I say authoritative is this. If I'm preaching a text and I'm giving my opnion in a topical sermon that jumps off from the word grace in Eph 2:8 that has an outline that says Grace is Godly, Grace is Glorious, Grace is Giving, Grace is Gutsy etc., then I'm giving people my opinions. It may be biblical, but its not authoritative until I can point to a text that clearly says what I'm saying. If I use three passages then I have to do the painstaking work of studying all three of those passages to make sure I'm getting it right and even then I can fail. When pick one passage and do the work to get it right, I am more likely to be right because instead of having 10-12 hours this week to work on three texts I have that time to work on one. I can show my congregation where I'm getting the truths from the text. They will say, "He's right because I see that God said it." If I don't get my point(s) or idea(s) from the text then its my word they have to trust. That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me. Or at least they shouldn't and no ground on which to do so. The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God. Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey. Haddon Robinson explained it to us in class this way. The text has one meaning that God wanted to convey through the author. Each passage has one basic idea. My job is to inductively discover that idea and then communicate it in a way that will be interesting, appealing and inspiring. That's the job of the preacher. He said, you have a target to hit. There's a bulls eye for each text. You're doing a good job if you hit the target and your message is close to the central meaning of the text. Too many sermons totally miss the mark. Example. Matthew 18 - "when two or three are gathered together in my name there I will be also" What's that about? If you don't study the passgage carefully by itself, then in context, you think its about God's presence in community worship. Problem is that isn't what the passage is about at all. It's about two agreeing about church discipline and if we agree together about how to redemptively discipline someone in unrepentant sin, then God joins with us. If you preach that passage in a sermon about prayer you missed the target. If you preach that sermon about church discipline you hit it. If you preach it about redemptive church discipline and the partnership with God in dealing with brothers/sisters who fall away, then you hit he bulls eye. I"ve heard sermons about that text that say something like ... Prayer is done in partnership with others Prayer is communion with God Prayer is unifying believers All sound good, but none of those are in that text.
[Y] I agree.
Thanks for the well written response. It must have been pretty cool to sit under Robinson.
With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion..........However, if the cost is prohibitive for you, I recommend the I-Beam workbook which has the content without Mo actually teaching it via DVD for 7 hours... you can have that for $29.95.
Oh boy! Seems like "Brother Mark"...LOL...I'm just ROFLOL...anyway, it seems like Bro. Mark lacks reading and comprehension skills. If money was tight, he recommended the workbook, and that's exactly what I had recommended...LOL...READ:
"...Just buy the booklet and you'll be fine. No real science to it."
Oh boy, it amazes me how people just read and comment without understanding what they read...oh well. I thought this was funny!
Nighty night!
Giovanni
That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me.
Now that makes a lot of sense... But on the flipside:
The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God.
Did not Paul imply the responsibility rests on the listener whether they be too lazy to check the claims of the preacher or if they are commendable like the Bereans? I have little sympathy for a disciple who won't turn pages of his Bible to confirm that is indeed what God has said. I know some preachers who can recite many chapters and whole books of the Bible (my son is one) yet they will always hold a Bible in their hands and turn to the passage and read it to the congregation.
Looking at some of the prophets God used, it would be hard to accept their authority considering their clothing (Matthew 3:4) or lack thereof (Isaiah 20:2.) But regardless of their popularity the authority of their message was valid. The authority is embodied in the Word itself whether delivered by a child, a woman, or rocks crying out; whether delivered by expository preaching or responsive readings. I only have to keep my opinions out of the message. (and that is hard for opinionated me [C])
With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion........
Not to get into a snit over the insulting manner that you characterized my reading and comprehension skills, I'll just point out that it was your opinion about the relative worth of the DVD that I chose to blatantly disregard. The fact that I agreed with you that the content is valuable (at least worth $39.95) and could be had without Mo teaching it for 7 hours was, obviously, beside the point.
Me too Gio, me too [:O]
Me too Gio, me too
Well that makes 2 of us then...[;)] [A]
