A good example of taking an expository approach to an extended biblical passage is Chris Altrock’s Rebuilding Relationships—A Sermon on the Mount Floor Plan (St. Louis: Chalice, 2008). Altrock’s thirteen chapters follow the themes and messages of Jesus’ three chapter Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5-7. Altrock’s approach is not to offer a commentary on the text, others do that. Nor does he cite the text and then go on to make his own points, many contemporary preachers do that. What he does is this: he stubbornly works his way through the entire sermon allowing the words of Jesus to raise the topic of his next chapter and insisting that the message of each chapter is dictated by Jesus’ own message.

Note these qualities of how Altrock unfolds the material in an expository way:

1—He argues that Jesus’ sermon centers on three relationships: with God, with possessions and with others. Showing that those three relationships arise out of Jesus’ sermon, rather than being imposed on the sermon, Altrock cleverly unfolds all three aspects of relationship building.

2—Altrock compares Jesus’ sermon to building a house. Altrock uses the vocation of Jesus’ early life as a carpenter as a way of communicating Jesus’ concern that we take greater care in how we “build” our relationships. He often compares the aspects of forming relationships to various kinds of construction. This extended metaphor allows Altrock to keep the material linked and provides ample helpful illustrative material. Thus Altrock works with three main issues: the material in Matthew 5-7, the three kinds of relationships, and the building metaphor. This triad serves him well allowing him to keep the presentation focused on the biblical material, but also unified and interesting.

3—Each chapter is abundantly illustrated. Each story reflects the topic or the message of the biblical passage. Some of the illustrations are used inductively. Altrock tells the story in such a way that before the story ends, the reader understands the point. Although he usually includes a brief deductive paragraph after each story, he proceeds to use many of his illustrations in an inductive manner.

Altrock enhances this approach by using many of the stories as envelopes or bookends. Early in the treatment of a section of the Sermon on the Mount, Altrock will introduce a story to make an inductive (or sometimes deductive) point. He then returns to the text to allow it to speak. The text points to another issue. Altrock will then return to the earlier story and tell another aspect of that illustration that links to the new point raised by the biblical passage. Inductive methods make the reader (or listener) think rather than being told what to think. Altrock is a master at this method.

4—As Altrock works his expository method on the Sermon on the Mount, he regularly recalls earlier key statements Jesus made or anticipates lines from later in the lesson. For example, in his opening chapter he cites the story of the wise and foolish builders from the end of Jesus’ lesson. Even at the conclusion of his book, Altrock is showing how the opening beatitudes play out in the rest of sermon.

There are many other fine features of Rebuilding Relationships, but certainly its expository approach is one of its most delightful qualities. Altrock helps us to see that we can allow the text to set the agenda and seek in the text the core message, and still be relevant and interesting in the process.

Harold Shank

 That comment gave me considerable pause.   The conversation moved on so I did not get to ask what he meant, but I suspect he was referring to sermons that are filled with exegetical details and word studies that have little relevance or interest for the average Christian.

Exegetical detail work and word studies are part of the foundational work for the sermon, but not part of the presentation.  If that is what my friend meant, then I agree.

However, good expository preaching pulls alongside a passage of Scripture, invites the listener into the core of what the biblical author meant, and allows God through his Word to communicate to the human heart.  Done well, expository preaching unlocks the power of God.   Executed with excellence, expository preaching can be as contemporary and relevant as any popular attempt to touch today’s Christian.

That kind of preaching challenges our thinking, alters our habits, refines our spirit and draws us closer to God.

Can we have too much of that kind of Bible?   No.  We need more of Scripture that touches us in that way.

Craddock, Fred B. As One Without Authority (Atlanta: Christian Board of Publication, 2001) 172 pages.

Craddock, Fred B. Overhearing the Gospel, Revised Edition (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2002) 142 pages.

Lewis, Ralph L. and Gregg Lewis. Inductive Preaching: Helping People Listen (Wheaton: Crossway, 1983) 228 pages.

Lowry, Eugene. The Homiletical Plot: The Sermon As Narrative Art Form (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000) 138 pages.

Wilson, Paul Scott. The Four Pages of the Sermon: A Guide to Biblical Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999) 276 pages.

We invite you to join our conversation about inductive preaching. The conversation first started in a graduate preaching class on Genesis and Exodus at Oklahoma Christian University when the instructor, Dr. Harold Shank, required the students to do only inductive preaching in the sermons preached in class. Grant Sullivan, Associate minister at the North Heights Church of Christ in Bixby, Oklahoma, was part of that class. Listen to how things unfolded.
Harold Shank: Most of Genesis and Exodus is narrative. Yet it is a story told with a theological purpose. Seldom in these 90 chapters do we get a list of doctrines or conclusions about what to believe. For that reason, I asked the students in the class to do only inductive preaching.

Grant Sullivan: In this class I embarked on a difficult and yet exciting journey of learning. This journey has only begun, but I am beginning to see the fruit of my labor. This journey is to learn inductive preaching. Upon introduction to inductive preaching, brought to my attention by Dr. Harold Shank, I determined to read several books looking for a greater understanding of the inductive approach to preaching and teaching the word of God. Having read three books at the time of this writing certainly shows I am in no way an expert on the matter. However, this process is something that is certainly fresh on my mind.
Harold Shank: When I asked the students to do inductive preaching, I was not prepared for the response. They were resistant. But they were also confused. Despite the fact that the class was on Genesis and Exodus, we had to take a detour into the question of “what is inductive preaching?” I called my preaching expert friend, Dr. Chris Altrock, and he provided me with a list of the most helpful books on inductive preaching.

 
Grant Sullivan: All my life I have been surrounded by information and examples of deductive preaching, but had never knowingly encountered this other approach. At first the more I read the more confused I became. In fact several times along the way it crossed my mind that this journey might not be worth the effort. It seemed like I was learning a foreign language, and my deductive habits were not going to leave without a fight. Yet after making the initial effort I have found the rewards to outweigh all the difficulties of this process.
Harold Shank: In our class I called for students to do expository preaching that was inductive. Expository preaching means taking the biblical material paragraph by paragraph and allowing the themes, topics and points of the biblical material to direct the themes, topics and points of the sermon. I found that explaining inductive preaching to people who had only heard and practiced deductive preaching was more difficult.
Grant Sullivan: The first major obstacle, and one admittedly I am still trying to overcome, was finding a clear definition of “inductive preaching.” Some writers on the subject will refer to narrative style under the umbrella of inductive, while others suggest them to be similar but distinct styles. I would read page after page looking for a clear definition of terms only to be disappointed. Then through guidance from Dr. Shank I started realizing I was not dealing with an exact science. I now believe that “inductive preaching” cannot be placed inside a labeled box.
Here is my attempt to help the reader gain insight into the difference between inductive and deductive preaching. Imagine that it is Christmas morning and you are longing to open your gifts. The anticipation has been building inside of you for days now and you simply cannot wait any longer to find out what you are getting. Finally the moment comes and you begin ripping the wrapping paper off your present. You can hardly stand the excitement as you take the lid off the box and found within is the greatest gift you have ever received. Now imagine the same scenario, but this time your older brother who knows what you are getting spoils the surprise. There is something about the experience that has been taken away and can never be regained. You may still love the gift, but to a degree you have been cheated.

*How many times have you recorded a ball game not wanting to know the outcome, and someone walks by and tells you the final score?

How many times have you wanted to see a movie only to have a spoiler in your midst?

I use these examples to help define inductive and deductive preaching.

Harold Shank: It’s fascinating to me that Grant is now using an inductive method to help us understand inductive preaching. As he told his Christmas story, I could see the conclusion coming. He did not really have to even state it. I drew it myself. That’s the inductive method.
Grant Sullivan: Deductive preaching is that which begins with the conclusion and works backwards to provide the evidence for how this conclusion was reached. Therefore in deductive preaching the listener is told the ending at the beginning of the sermon, and the remainder of the sermon is spent providing the reasons why this is “correct”. The inductive approach put simply is the opposite of the deductive approach. Inductive preaching takes the listeners along the journey toward the conclusion. Inductive preaching begins with ambiguity and leads the listener toward the answer. As Eugene L. Lowry puts it in his book, The Homiletical Plot, we begin with an “itch” in search of the “scratch”.
Harold Shank: In Grant’s last entry, he becomes more deductive, telling us the conclusion and then supporting his point. There is nothing wrong with deductive reasoning. It has been used with profit for ages, but inductive preaching has advantages. But changing is hard.
Grant Sullivan: In this blog post I’ve tried to whet your appetite to consider inductive preaching. I would also challenge you to never be satisfied, but always look for ways to improve your delivery of the most important message ever told. Often people are not willing to change until they realize that there is a need for change. I have been guilty in the past of believing that if I preach the truth powerfully and with enthusiasm that people who refuse to listen are the ones at fault entirely. Although I would not dare remove all the responsibility from the listener I have come to believe that a good self assessment was needed in my preaching. I would like to share with you some things that I have noticed since beginning this series of personal assessment and growth.
Harold Shank: Most of us multi-task. We do more than one thing at a time. That becomes a problem on Sunday. If most of the audience is multi-tasking as I preach, I wonder how much of God’s word is actually getting through. Inductive preaching demands more attention from the listener. Instead of every conclusion being clearly stated and supported, the listener has to participate. That leads to a higher level of interest.
Grant Sullivan: This process has not been easy. Old habits are hard to break. So why did I go through with the process? It is partly because I am stubborn, but after trying the inductive approach I have a new and better reason to continue on this journey. The results are speaking for themselves.
I have noticed that people are not shifting in their seats and getting up to take restroom breaks nearly as often. I have had several people who have walked up discussing various parts of the sermon instead of the usual “great sermon” followed by “so what did you think of that ballgame yesterday?” This is just a few examples of the results I am noticing. The real excitement for me is when I realize how much I need to improve with my inductive delivery. It is my hope that as I improve the results will become even greater.
Harold Shank: Once a person becomes aware of these two ways of thinking/preaching, it is easy to become critical. But there is no right or wrong here. For me, it is more a means of making the preaching method fit the text. Genesis and Exodus force us to take the story and draw conclusions. Preaching from Genesis and Exodus might do the same.
Grant Sullivan: The latest problem I am having is what might be described as a “superiority complex”. I now have a hard time listening to others preaching deductively. You might say that I am overly critical. Much like a child with a new toy, I am enamored with something new, and imagine my criticalness of deductive preaching will fade with time. Admittedly there is a place for both inductive and deductive preaching. It might be that the inductive approach would even lose some of its freshness if there was a total abandonment of deductive preaching. For now I will simply say that the inductive approach is a breath of fresh air.

Harold Shank: We’ve simply shared a bit of our experience. Tell us yours. How can we sharpen our definitions? Join the discussion.

The words to this new hymn are below.  You can listen to it by going to “sermons” on this web site and clicking on “Heartbeat of God.”   Please ignore the fact that it says “preached by composer Kathy Thompson.”

The words and music to this hymn also appear on page 218 of my new book, Listening to His Heartbeat.”

“Heartbeat of God” by Dr. Kathy Thompson

1. LORD, LORD, compassionate, gracious God,
Slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
Maintaining love to thousands,
Forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.
LORD, LORD, we hear your heartbeat of love.
2. LORD, LORD, The Prodigal Son confessed,
And was welcomed and pressed to his father’s loving breast.
Though weary and unworthy,
He heard that heartbeat of redemption and rest.
LORD, LORD, we hear your heartbeat of love.
3. LORD, LORD, we offer our thanks and praise,
For the breadth of your faithfulness blesses all our days.
We strive to walk in your ways,
But when we fall, we find the depth of your grace.
LORD, LORD, we hear your heartbeat of love.

Increasingly students of Scripture notice that few of us study the Bible while asking the question, “What does this passage say about God?”   Other issues tend to push aside the discovery about God.  Obstacles tend to get in the way.

*We read Genesis 1 asking questions about the creation, but often we don’t look for what it says about the creator.

*We read the Ten Commandments for moral direction, rather than seeking the moral director.

*We look at the Sermon on the Mount seeking the point, rather than seeking its preacher.

If we want to listen to God’s heartbeat, what better place to look than his book?  Can you think of a simplier tool than to read a verse and ask, “What does this passage say about God?” 

Perhaps instead of calling it Bible study, we can start describing the same process as “listening to God’s heartbeat.”

Atheist and anti-theist, Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, uses God’s destructive side as evidence against any divine being:  “God’s monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god resembles nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind, and again it should strike the modern moralist as far from good role-model material” (p. 243).

 Dawkins draws attention to God’s involvement in a host of violent episodes in the Bible.  We cannot deny their presence.  But we can ask why they are there and what they say about God.

 In “God and Violence in the Old Testament” (Word and World, Winter 2004, page 21) Terence Fretheim delves into the theology behind this violence.  He makes one especially critical point:  “If there were no human violence, there would be no divine violence.” 

 God permits human violence.  At times it grows so out of control that God counters that violence with violence.  Proverbs 21:7 reflects on this point:  “The violence of the wicked will sweep them away, because they refuse to do what is just.”  When violence gets out of control it even comes back on those who started it.  Someone has to stop what people start.   Fortunately for the sake of humankind, God takes up that task.

 One technique in stopping a wild fire is back burning.   A small controlled fire is used to destroy an area in front of the wild fire.  When the out of control wild fire reaches the back burned area, the fire goes out because its fuel is gone.

 Fretheim points out that in Scripture God’s involvement in violence always occurs in response to human destructiveness.  He responds in order to save people from the violence or to discipline those who use violence recklessly.  More can be said about the violence of God, but a central point is we can be assured that there is a divine being who resists human evil.   You can count on it.

 But most of all, what I experienced was dissonance, hearing two contradictory messages at the same time, one from the exhibit and one from my spirit.

The extensive exhibit on evolution pointed out the four pillars of the theory:  1-each kind of life has variety.  So there are all kinds of dogs.  2-traits are inherited.  So I look like a combination of my parents.  3-evolution requires time.  The exhibit claimed the earth is 4.6 billion years old.   4-only the strongest survive.  The exhibit focused on a group of birds which could only find hard nuts to eat during hard times.  Only the ones with the appropriate beaks survived. 

 We left the museum with all sorts of thoughts.  A visitor’s response area included a posting of recent comments.  Many urged the museum to present a creationist point of view.  One note warned that anybody who believed what the museum taught was headed to hell.

 Ironically, the next day I was reading Ecclesiastes 3.  I was struck by how this Old Testament book framed my thoughts about the visit. 

 First, Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 compares humans to animals.  The writer of Ecclesiastes looks at life “under the sun” which is his way of saying that in the book he views life from a secular point of view.   From that viewpoint, both animals and humans are dust and return to dust.  Although I don’t think the museum had any human bones, much of the exhibit was a trip through an animal cemetery.  All the animals there are dead.  The museum looked almost entirely at the past.  That, of course is its intent.   It views life under the sun.

 Second, Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 stresses that there is a time for everything: “a time to be born and a time to die.”  It helped me to understand that there was a time of dinosaurs and a time without dinosaurs.   Ecclesiastes aims to say that despite our efforts life just goes on.  Despite all we do, beyond all our abilities, regardless of our study and our technology, there is a time to be born and a time to die.  Every skeleton in that museum followed that pattern.  There were no exceptions.

 Third, Ecclesiastes 3:9-11 stands in contrast to 3:1-8.  In the first section the writer uses the word “time” 29 times.  We are stuck in time.  It does not matter whether the time is 4.6 billion years or 4000 years.  We are stuck in it.  There is nothing we can do to transcend time.  In Ecclesiastes 3:9-11 the writer adds another dimension.  Ecclesiastes says we have eternity in our minds (Ecc 3:11).   Despite living in the Cenozoic Era, we all have an urge that there is something more.  It frustrates us that we are confined to this era when we have a sense that there is something beyond time itself.   That is where I felt the dissonance.  

 That verse in Ecclesiastes  helped me to express what I was feeling when I left the museum.  Is the museum’s presentation of existence all there is?  We live, we evolve and then we die?   If we are a big animal, they put our bones on display?   I left thinking there had to be something else to life. 

 Fourth, Ecclesiastes 3 treated the realities of this time and this world much like the Noble Museum.  But Ecclesiastes is unable to resist mentioning the one word that the museum refuses to mention.  Despite our eventual return to dust, regardless of our being limited to time, even with our sense that there is something else out there, Ecclesiastes says the word:  God.   God has made everything beautiful (Ecc 3:11).  It all fits together.  Life is filled with variety.  We inherit traits of our parents.  There is a time for everything.  Yes, even the strong survive.   Based on Ecclesiastes’ reflection on life, it is not by chance, but by design.

 I was struck by how Ecclesiastes 3 gave voice to what I sensed in viewing the delightfully prepared exhibits at the museum.  The scientists join Ecclesiastes in viewing “life under the sun.”   I think the writer of Ecclesiastes would have enjoyed the afternoon touring the exhibits.  He might have added “there is a time to go to museums and a time to stay home.”  But Ecclesiastes senses that there is something more.  Whether one spends a day at a museum or looks around at the world, one is filled with dissonance.   Ecclesiastes allows that dissonance to lead him to God. 

 I’ve decided to follow that same course.

It may be that the two dominating images of God in contemporary society are General God and God the lawyer.   God is called a general when he attacks injustice and oppression.  The Lord of the army comes to the rescue.  We also know God as the law giver and law enforcer which perhaps links him to the contemporary role of an attorney.  God is both a general and a lawyer.

But he is so much more.

When we elevate the military and legal nature of God above all the other images of the divine being, we end up with a skewed vision of who he is.  Those images dominate and overcome other metaphors that depict another part of his nature.    All this has huge implications.

*The current anti-theism crusade attacks a God that is all general and no shepherd, one that is all lawyer and no loving father.  The God they attack does not exist. 

*Many believers wonder if they can believe in God any more.  Perhaps part of their doubt rests on a perception of God as general and lawyer.   Believers tend to look to the distorted God of contemporary culture rather than seek a more balanced portrait arising from biblical revelation.

*When we’re under attack we may be grateful for a God who can command armies.  When society turns barbaric, we can grab on to the God of order and structure.    But we must get beyond those two limited visions of God and probe deeper.  We must listen for the heartbeat of the essence of God.