Discussion Questions
The speaker defines preaching as “explaining Scripture and applying it to the individual life of the person”; what gets lost in a church when sermons drift into “pep talks” or using a verse as a “springboard… never to return,” and what does that reveal about what God intends Scripture to do to us? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is missing in a church when sermons turn into feel-good talks or use a Bible verse and then move on? What does that show about what God wants Scripture to do in our lives?
The speaker says Protestants often “leave the application part to the Holy Spirit,” while Anabaptists emphasize the preacher’s obligation to apply the text; where is the line between faithful application and controlling people’s consciences, and how should a preacher rely on the Spirit without using “the Spirit” as a reason to avoid concrete obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When does applying a Bible passage help people obey God, and when does it start controlling their conscience? How can a preacher depend on the Holy Spirit without using that as an excuse to avoid clear calls to obedience?
The speaker insists preaching should be presented as “the word of God rather than, here are a bunch of options, you pick them”; what assumptions about God’s clarity and authority are embedded in that claim, and how does it confront modern habits of treating sermons as “thoughts to consider”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If preaching should sound like God speaking and not like “pick the option you like,” what does that assume about God’s authority and how clear his Word is? How does this challenge the way people treat sermons as just “ideas to think about”?
The speaker says the preacher must study until “he has a conclusion,” even while admitting other views exist; what makes a conclusion responsibly earned rather than dogmatically asserted, and how should a congregation respond when they suspect a preacher hasn’t truly “studied to the point” of understanding? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What makes a preacher’s conclusion careful and well-earned instead of stubborn and pushy? If you think a preacher hasn’t studied enough to understand the text, how should the church respond?
The speaker describes the sermon as “the pinnacle” of the service—“you build up to it and you fade from it”; what would have to change in your church’s Sunday gathering (expectations, liturgy, attention, preparation) for preaching to function that way, and what might that expose about what we actually come to church for? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the sermon is meant to be the high point of the service, what would need to change in how your church plans and participates on Sunday? What might that reveal about why we really come to church?
The speaker calls communion “an object sermon” and says it’s “very improper” to treat it as an appendix; how does viewing the Lord’s Supper as a preached proclamation (“you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”) reshape the way we participate, prepare, and connect it to repentance and obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does seeing communion as a kind of preached message about Jesus’ death change how you prepare for it and take it? How should it connect to repentance and obeying Christ?
The speaker says preaching is “turning the text loose” and “letting it… speak,” while also saying the preacher must “get out of the way” and let the Spirit apply it; what practical choices in sermon content and delivery help the text take center stage rather than the preacher’s personality, opinions, or stories? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What choices in what a preacher says and how he says it help the Bible passage stand out more than the preacher’s personality, opinions, or stories? How can the preacher “get out of the way” so the text speaks?
The speaker quotes a theologically liberal preacher who compared studying Scripture to “wiring in an old house with the mains turned on… you will get zapped,” then adds that we “underestimate the power of the Scripture itself”; where have you experienced Scripture “zapping” you, and what habits keep modern Christians insulated from that kind of confrontation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When has a Bible passage strongly convicted or challenged you? What habits today keep Christians from being challenged like that by Scripture?
The speaker’s counsel is “Study, prayer, and simplify,” including reading the text “10 times… over a period of time” and not dumping everything studied on the congregation; what does “simplify” demand from a preacher’s ego and from a congregation’s appetite for novelty or complexity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it cost a preacher to “simplify” instead of showing everything he studied? What does it ask of a church that always wants something new or extra deep?
The speaker says he doesn’t want to assume Bible school students are saved and that the gospel should be proclaimed “regularly,” not necessarily every time; how should preaching change if we stop assuming church attenders are converted, and what parts of “modern evangelical assurance” might this challenge in how we address baptized, long-time members? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How would preaching change if we stop assuming everyone in church is truly converted? What common ways of giving assurance to long-time, baptized members might that question or challenge?