At some point, an article of mine will be published in the Founders Journal that is entitled, “The Art of Listening to the Best Method of Preaching.” That article explains the Perkins-Westminster Assembly-Van Mastricht method of preaching, and offers help for listeners. For those familiar with this Reformed method of expository method, it’s well-known that the basic structure of a sermon is “text, doctrine, uses.” In the text, a brief explanation of the structure of the text is given. In the doctrine, which is the heart of the sermon, an explanation of what God is teaching in that place is given. Finally, at the end, some points of application are given. In the doctrinal section, the aim is to work through the biblical reasoning of that particular text, so it tends to go into great depth. To give Van Mastricht’s example, he says that Colossians 3:1 teaches, “those who are united to Christ and obtain the communion of Christ’s death and life abide in the heavenly way of life.” (TPT, 1:13). To give more explanation of “the heavenly way of life,” he gives 7 points that are all drawn from Scripture but stated with an opening “heavenly” (it requires a heavenly soul, heavenly goal, heavenly occupations of soul, heavenly norm, heavenly fellowship, and heavenly zeal). Personally, I think I’ve been weaker in my work to make my points as easy to track.
Here, though, I want to point out that there’s another way of using the doctrinal-expository method. I think I only mention it briefly in the article, and it’s probably not as common as the simple “text-doctrine-uses” structure of the whole sermon in the earlier preachers, but it’s not entirely absent either. This method still follows “text-doctrine-uses,” but it includes more doctrines than in the other sermons. I want to give some examples, but also explain some of the pros-and-cons of this other way of structuring a sermon.
Examples
Both of my examples are from John Cotton, and both of them are from texts I’m currently preaching through because they’re both works that I have immediately on hand.
On 1 John 2:9–11, Cotton includes two doctrines. To work through these doctrines, he gives a brief exposition of the verses’ structure, and then he includes his first doctrine (“Doct. He that hateth his Brother, whither he profess the light or no, he is in darkness, ever was in darkness, and knows not where he is, not whither he goes”). This is followed by an explanation of some of the parts, and then he gives three reasons for this. He concludes that doctrine with four uses (refute Roman Catholics, self-examination regarding acts of love, teaches us to love our brother, and gives us comfort). He then gives a second doctrine (“Doct. He that loves his Brother, walks constantly, and inoffensively in the state of Grace”). This is followed by three reasons and four uses.
Our other example comes from Cotton’s exposition of Ecclesiastes 1:12–15. Again, he gives an explanation of the text, including some of the structure, some references to the particulars (subject, act, instrument, object), etc. He then provides five doctrines from this text (1 from vv. 12–13, 2 from v. 13, 3 and 4 from v. 14, and 5 from v. 15). Each of these have explanations and reasons followed by uses before moving to the next doctrine.
Pros-and-Cons
There are pros and cons to both ways of structuring the sermons, some more basic and some more contextual.
First, the benefit of structuring the sermons with multiple doctrines is that you can cover more text in each sermon. I found that this was particularly beneficial when preaching through some narrative portions in Matthew, but it’s beneficial in other genres as well. In the case of narrative, the reason it’s beneficial is because an account of narrative should probably be taken all at once. As it is taken, it communicates particular ideas by means of structural build up. These ideas are teaching something (i.e., they’re doctrines). If the whole of a narrative is taken at once, the sermon will simply need to have multiple doctrines. As we see in the examples from Cotton, this can be applied to other genres as well.
Second, and more contextual, the inclusion of multiple doctrines can be more easily received by those accustomed to current methods of preaching. Since current methods typically have multiple points in a sermon, having multiple doctrines can be more easily received since it will ‘feel’ very similar to other methods of preaching. This leads to a third point.
Third, doing this can help to acquaint people more easily to the fact that Christian preaching is fundamentally doctrinal. If people can see that God is teaching—which is where we get the term “doctrine”—then they are more apt to receive Scripture as it is intended to be received (the teaching of God, in contrast to a whole host of different ways we might be tempted to receive it). If this structure assists in that, then good. Not only listeners but also preachers. Since many are taught these other methods, it can be difficult to work through shifting to a more conscientious doctrinal practice of preaching, especially in the midst of normal ministry (change my method by Sunday?!). This allows for a gentler approach.
I’m only calling these next items “cons” in a colloquial way (because I used “pros” for the previous points), not as an “argument” against it.
First, as something of a contrast to the first “pro,” there is less depth whenever we choose more breadth. It’s simply the case that our time in the sermon is limited. As the structuring of our time at other points in our lives, so also in our structuring of sermon time we must make decisions about how best to use it. Is it better to dig deeper into the Bible’s teaching on a particular item (something better suited to the other method), or should we cover more of the text with a little less depth?
Second, the “multiple doctrines” approach requires more work to establish unity in a sermon. One thing that Lloyd-Jones (and others, of course) says is that a sermon should have unity. In a single-doctrine sermon, that unity is simply in the fact that there’s a single doctrine. Everything else is related to that. As I said in my own case of weakness in this area, it’s possible to have less unity even in a single-doctrine sermon simply by not being thorough about providing unity between subpoints (Van Mastricht shows how it can be done well). A multiple-doctrine sermon requires more effort by the simple virtue of the fact that there are multiple doctrines. Personally, I think unity should be sought from one Sunday to the next as well, so that means even if there are single-doctrine sermons, some kind of continuity should be sought that goes beyond what was often given by Puritans (e.g., “Last time we saw…this time John says…”).
Before moving to my third point, I want to give three examples of how I’ve tried to provide unity in both structures.
First, I try to take a block of text at a time, even if I’m doing single-doctrine preaching, and then aim at developing the argument of that block over the weeks it takes to preach the single doctrine sermons. For example, in 1 John 3:1–3 (one sermon for each verse), I spoke of “Confounding Love,” “Conforming Love,” and “Cleansing Love.” In 1 John, because he goes back and forth from one verse to the next, I have sometimes just sought to preach the themes of a passage sequentially rather than verse-by-verse. For example, in the following passage, vv. 4–10, I looked at the doctrine of sin and then, leading into Christmas, the Incarnation. The first three sermons were “sin is” sermons (lawlessness, godlessness, devilish), and the latter three were on “the Jesus who came,” and two reasons he came (“to destroy sin,” and “to destroy the works of the devil”).
Third, last night I preached a large block (Ecclesiastes 2:12–26), and I had one doctrine per paragraph (using ESV’s paragraph breaks). To aim at unity, I provided this statement before each doctrine, “To the question of what gain is to be had under the sun, the Preacher reminds/teaches us that…” As a head doctrine for the whole, I said, “Man gains nothing lasting by the way that he lives here,” as seen in the fact he dies and his legacy is not guaranteed, but he can use the fleeting things to enjoy God.
The third and final “con” I’m including is that only using the multiple-doctrines approach can leave people weaker at following sustained argument. If our sermons only ever follow this approach, because it’s naturally less in-depth, then the growth that happens by a more thorough pursuit of a single doctrine can be lost. The richness of the text and the ability to see that can be missed by those who sit under our preaching.
Not Either-Or, Per Se
While it would be easiest to choose one way or another, it is probably best to have a little bit of variety. As Beeke says, “To balance our preaching, we should move through the Scriptures at a steady pace, neither rushing forward, nor getting stuck in a rut and doing a repetitive amount of sermons on a particular verse.” In some ways, aiming to preach in both ways allows us to give more depth at some points and more breadth at others. While the temptation for some is to cover large sections of Scripture without great depth, and the temptation for others is to go into great detail while losing some of the breadth, moving back and forth a little between the two is probably quite beneficial.
Reformed. Baptist. Growing. 