RTS has an annual John Reed Miller Lecture Series. In 2005 they hosted Sinclair Ferguson. Dr. Ferguson gave a series of lectures on preaching Christ and preaching the Gospel. The lectures he delivered were:

As I continue to make my way through John Carrick’s new volume, The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards, I am continually astounded at the Northampton pastor-theologian’s preaching skills. A particularly interesting chapter for me was the one on Edwards’ sermon delivery. Edwards has the reputation of reading his sermon manuscripts from the pulpit looking up from the sacred desk every once in awhile to gaze at the church bell rope! This is one of those myths that refuses to die, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but it is a myth all the same. There may have been a point in time when Edwards did read his sermon manuscripts, but he outgrew that practice while serving as pastor in Northampton. Many scholars, who recognize the myth of boringly read sermons, attribute Edwards’ development to the visit of the great orator George Whitefield. Carrick notes that this may be confusing the occasion for Edwards moving away from the use of full manuscripts for its cause. It seems pretty clear to me, from Edwards’ own comments about what good preaching entails, that he was moving away from reading his sermons in the pulpit before the Whitefield visit. But one thing is clear, by the time he settled in Stockbridge, he was preaching from notes. We even have evidence that he preached “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” from an outline. And, contra Wilson Kimnach, this is, as Carrick indicates, no sure sign that lethargy had set in. It was, rather, a conscious recognition that preaching is an oral event. Edwards was always concerned that he reach the head and heart of his hearers at the moment of the preaching event.

Preaching has been on my mind these last few weeks as I have had the privilege of filling pulpits of hard working pastors who have taken their well-earned vacations. Summers have always been busy preaching seasons for me, both as a licentiate and now as an ordained minister. I serve as the teacher of the congregation for an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in New Jersey and so my duties do not include regular weekly preaching. But one of the benefits of being a teacher is that I can help out others when they need pulpit supply. It has been my privilege to lift up Christ to various congregations these last few weeks. And my summer preaching run appears to be drawing to close with this Labor Day weekend. With Jeremiah, I cannot not preach Christ. There is a burning in my bones to make the gospel known.

I have been drawn to considering Jonathan Edwards’ sermon delivery practices as I wrestle with my own. I have been preaching on and off now since 1983, and fairly regularly since 1986. I am not in a position to gauge whether I have made any improvements in the intervening years. I hope and pray I have. Perhaps to be concerned with that question is inappropriate any way. One of the things I learned early in my own ministry in 1986 was that I had a tendency to read my sermons in the pulpit and I have read that voracious readers can have that problem. So I decided to attempt preaching from an outline. But since attending seminary I have returned to the full manuscript. Recently I was challenged by colleagues in the ministry to try preaching from notes once again. I began doing that last Lord’s Day and I must say that it allows for greater freedom and clarity of communication and engagement with the congregation. That is, after all, what preaching should be about. Preaching is the expounding of God’s Word, showing how Christ is the focal point of all revelation and driving it home to the hearts and minds of my hearers.

In the end, though, preaching is not about me or Jonathan Edwards or any other preacher. It is about setting forth the claims of the gospel in clear, forthright terms. Preaching is a matter of expounding the whole counsel of God with conviction and compassion. Preaching is one of the most demanding, challenging, frustrating, invigorating, and joyous endeavors. And I try to take advantage of preaching opportunities whenever I can, both in my home congregation and in other places when the call comes to me. Again, preaching is not about me at all. As I just was reminded last evening, one cannot step into the pulpit and be concerned to be a great orator and also preach Christ as a great savior! While I will always want to strive to improve and be better at proclaiming the gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ, a constant focus on Christ and him crucified is what the world needs to hear.

In a day when we have the privilege of listening to any preacher in the world at the push of a button I find it interesting to know who some of the best preachers in the church listen to. In this video John Piper answers the question, “Who do you listen to?” I think the answer he gives is interesting for two reasons. First, both ministers he mentions are highly doctrinal preachers. Second, both men, he explains, were highly serious men. Listen for yourself:

As I continue to read through Iain Murray’s splendid volume Lloyd-Jones: Messenger of Grace I have been blessed and strengthened by the example set by the good doctor ML-J. This evening I read through the chapter on Old Testament evangelistic sermons (55-83) and was impressed with ML-J’s concern with using the Old Testament to open the eyes of the lost to their true condition. It is a beautiful thing to behold the use to which ML-J put the text of the OT.* Lloyd-Jones was really doing at least two things at once.

The first thing ML-J was doing was rehabilitating the OT for the church. In his day, ML-J saw that the church failed to read, meditate upon, and use the OT. It was as if the New Testament sprung out of nowhere. So ML-J was recalling the church to re-encounter 2/3rds of God’s Word. The second thing ML-J was doing was confronting unbelievers with a mirror of themselves. Men and women, boys and girls are pretty much the same whether in mid-20th century London or in 8th century BC Jerusalem. People struggle with sin wherever they live. We are all children of Adam and Eve this side of Eden. People will not seek a Savior without sensing their need for salvation. ML-J’s use of OT evangelistic sermons brought unbelievers face to face with reality, especially the reality of a wrathful God. The good news that is the gospel will not look like good news if it is not writ against the backdrop of the bad news of sin. ML-J demonstrates how useful the OT is for outreach to the unbelieving world.

Murray wonders why evangelical churches in the UK at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century failed to preach 2/3rds of the Bible with power and conviction. One of the problems was the acid of critical scholarship which called into question the integrity of the OT. He notes,

A very different position obtained when Dr. Lloyd-Jones began his ministry. And today any Old Testament preaching, let alone of an evangelistic nature, is often hard to find. Those of us who preach are probably conscious of our deficiency in this regard. But why should it be? One reason is that we have been living in the after-shock of the assault which was made on the Old Testament by an unbelieving scholarship towards the end of the nineteenth century.

At the beginning of the twentieth century the Scottish Presbyterian minister and higher-critic, Professor George Adam Smith, gave eight lectures at Yale which were subsequently published as Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament. Smith’s case was that higher criticism had provided a new understanding of what was dependable in the pages of the Old Testament. Ministers would therefore now be able to discriminate and deal with the Old with more confidence. The result, Smith assured his hearers, could only be beneficial to their preaching. There could not have been a greater delusion. N. L walker, reviewing Smith’s Yale lectures, said:

“The book is fitted to do a great deal of mischief…Written apparently for the purpose of relieving the perplexities of such preachers as have been disturbed by the higher critics, it has unquestionably failed in that aim. Many preachers will continue to have as many difficulties as before. Professor Smith fails to meet the situation. He has done worse than that. He has awakened doubts where none previously existed and seriously hindered the evangelistic work of the Church.”** (61-63)

This all sounds familiar to me. It appears the more things change the more they stay the same.

* I should say that ML-J’s OT sermons (at least those in this volume) are not particularly redemptive historical and verge on what has been called exemplaristic. That is, ML-J feels free to jump from the OT context right to the situation of his contemporary hearers without going through Jesus Christ. This would be the one area where I would demur from ML-J’s example.

** Murray cites N. L. Walker, “The Case of Prof. George Adam Smith,” in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review (Philadelphia, October 1902): 596.

In his wonderfully helpful book Thoughts on Preaching J.W. Alexander notes how a minister who is not bound to a schedule for his study, but who gives himself to the free, unrestrained study of a variety of books, and of thinking a multitude of thoughts unexpectedly, is often generating the most valuable insights. He put it this way:

I could never understand those people who divide their day into portions…and allot so much to one study, and so much to another. I used to make such schedules when I was a lad. Great credit did I take to myself for making them, and great shame for breaking them; which I did day by day. I am now convinced that any attainments that have fallen to my lot, were really not made in these compulsory hours.

When a man is roaming about his library, taking down now this book, and then that, pacing the floor, scribbling on a bit of paper, humming a tune, and seeming a tune, and seeming to others and to himself to trifle, he is often engaged in his most profitable exercise.

Where there is an active inquiring mind, something is always brewing. There is no such thing as idleness. If he is not gathering the raw material, he is elaborating that which has been gathered. Many of these processes go on without our control. Our best trains of thought come and go without our bidding. The man who never knows what it is to throw himself upon the waves, and go whither they carry him, is not likely to have very genial thoughts.1

After sharing this with my secretary and our church administrator, Amy, she noted that this is true to an even greater degree with women who are bringing up children. As they hurry through the day, taking care of the children they are often generating a multitude of thoughts and ideas for several areas of life. This is what we have come to call “multi-tasking.” May ministers of the Gospel learn the great blessing contained therein.

[1] J.W. Alexander Thoughts on Preaching (Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth, reprinted 1988) p. 61

I am currently reading through Iain Murray’s latest book on the preaching of David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. There is much about the book I could comment on, but what caught my attention the other day was ML-J’s emphasis on doctrinal preaching. I offer a hearty amen to his unpopular stand on the necessity of clear, persuasive doctrinal preaching. Is there really any other legitimate kind? (That is a rhetorical question demanding a “no”!)

Murray, in speaking about the unpopular nature of books of sermons, notes that ML-J was the grand exception to the publishing rule. “It is true that unction cannot be put on the printed page, but the sermons showed what theology and doctrine should do in the exposition of Scripture. The Pauline method, ML-J believed, in addressing Christians was ‘to open out doctrines, to teach them, to instruct them, to establish them, to ground them…’” (21-22).

ML-J went on to point out that “Preaching is theology coming through a man that is on fire” (22). Preaching is not about telling stories. Yes, the Bible is a grand narrative, but it is that and so much more. But I am one of those odd ducks that thinks the Bible actually teaches something. And it needs to be told with conviction, boldness, and passion.

I first came in contact with the sermons of ML-J back in 1986 and have greatly benefited from them ever since. It is not as though I agree with everything ML-J taught. I have my disagreements. For instance, I am convinced of the redemptive-historical approach to theology and preaching (see Nick Batzig’s helpful comments in his recent post on the preaching on Derek Thomas). But ML-J strikes the right chord with his emphasis on doctrine. All doctrine, rightly conceived, leads to godliness. Can that trek get short-circuited? Undoubtedly. But we really do need to train our congregations to digest meaty sermons. Christianity in America is in a terrible mess because Christians fail to reckon with the teaching of the Bible. Bible knowledge is at an all time low. Does knowledge save by itself? Of course not. But one cannot be saved without it!

I pray that our Lord would raise up more men with a vision for preaching like David Martyn Lloyd-Jones. May his tribe increase!

      Recently, as I have been reading through various articles and blogs I have come to realize that we really do lack a simplicity in the way we express the deepest biblical truths. Please don’t get me wrong. I believe that we should always move from the milk of the word to the meat of the word. Anyone who wants only milk is a babe and has not come to full maturity in Christ. There is an inexhaustible mine of riches in the Gospel that we must labor for, but we must learn to present these riches in a way that it easy to understand. 

      I have often thought about the simplicity of our Lord in His teaching. While no one would argue that Jesus only gave the milk of the word, many would take issue with preachers who, today, speak in such simple language as He. For instance, Jesus, while teaching about how much God cares for His people said, “Consider the lilies.” When teaching about the Kingdom of God He said, “Look at the mustard seed.” And while calling men to come to Him, He said, “Whoever is thirsty let him come to Me and drink.”  Even when men tried to catch Him in His words He taught them with theological depth about the rightful dominion of God over man, who is made in the image of God. He said to the scribes, “bring Me a coin. Whose image and inscription is on it. Therefore give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to God what is God’s.”

     There was an all-encompassing simplicity to Jesus’ words. This should characterize our preaching and writing as well. Of course there is the biblical truth that many will not understand even when our words are simple. This is evidenced by our Lord’s parables. When asked why He spoke in parables our Lord said, “So that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not hear…He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts…so that they may not turn and be healed.” It is ultimately not the simplicity of our words that make the divine revelation understandable. As Jesus told Peter, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but My Father who is in heaven. We do not want to come to a place where we think people will understand because of simplicity of speech, nevertheless, we should not try to be as wordy and unintelligible as we can be for those to whom it is given to believe. 

       For all aspiring preachers, J. C. Ryles’ chapter “Simplicity in Preaching”(chapter 3 in his book The Upper Room) would be a good place to begin the quest for this kind of preaching.