Featured Homiletical Theology: What makes a great sermon?

By all means, please feel free to elaborate.

Was not the commandment to to teach/instruct/disciple?

 

As mentioned in another thread, Paul Washer slithered into our local congregation to speak twice, two times too many. His entire presentation was demeaning, disrespectful, and nothing but damaging to the cause of Christ. He presented a slide show before his sermon that centered on him and his Jungle Jim adventures in Peru. His sermons are a circus side show, and he is a disgrace. This person brings nothing but dissention and division in a local church.

 

The work of the Spirit.

 

The pastors I have served under were a diverse group. Some preached only expository sermons; some mainly topical, and some did both. One of my pastors taught homiletics at Mid-Continent University (where I now serve on the board of trustees). He taught his ministerial students to eschew what he called "topical trash" and preach expository sermons only

As part of a final exam, each student had to preach a sermon to the class. One student preached a topical sermon. He got an F. When the student received his grade, he stormed into the professor's office. "You gave me an F. God told me to preach that sermon."

The professor replied: "God told me to give you an F."

 

0h, and what makes a good sermon.

One definition I heard: Three points and a poem.

 

For most congregants, two points and poem is even better.

 

And there are those who miss the point completely. :laugh:

 

Given the evidences of early Christian and Second Temple Judaistic homiletical forms the expository style we are most familiar with today is almost entirely unknown to the NT era. Aspects of it exist, but (and particularly I'm thinking of Jewish midrashism) the topical and allegorical approaches dominated that era.

It's always curious to hear arguments for an expository form that makes it out to be the NT model when, in fact, there are clear examples of other forms being used.

 

A voice of reason. Thanks for your insight.

 

Peter's Sermon, Acts 2:14-41

Opening, reference to current event, folks who had appeared drunk.

Explanation, these demonstrated the partial fulfillment of Joel 2:28 and following.

Now listen to the words of Jesus, who is well attested by signs and wonders. This man delivered up according to God's predetermined plan, you nailed to the cross. Here Peter convicts the audience of their wretchedness.

Peter then doubles down, God raised Jesus from the dead!

Using another OT reference, Peter demonstrates Jesus is greater than King David, whose body rots to this day.

Still using David, Peter tells his audience that David spoke of Jesus and His resurrection.

And then, Peter tells them that it was Jesus who poured out the Spirit, they themselves had witnessed.

Finally, Peter draws it to close, restating His main point, God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Seeing that people had been moved, Peter gives an invitation.

In summary we see Peter used current events, biblical illustrations, and evidence his audience was familiar with.

But the topic was not abortion, Obama, states rights, or Duck Dynasty. It was Christ, first last and always.

 

So people who were/are being raised in ungodly homes with ungodly examples don't need to hear what the bible says about finances, relationships, and the other things identified in that series? They just need to open-air preach and get spit on, and all the other things in their lives will fall into place?

 

Logic and reason. Thanks, Van!