If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you clearly don't understand the problem.

What follows is a total departure from my normal posts, prompted by ongoing email conversations with two people in two different cities (neither of those in AZ) on the topic of preaching.

When I took homiletics (preaching class) as an undergrad our text was "How to Prepare Bible Messages" by James Braga. Even then the book showed its age, but it was as good a text on the preparation and delivery of sermons as any written before or since, IMO.

Fifteen years later when I joined the faculty at that same school and was asked to teach the homiletics classes I discovered Braga's book was out of print. Drat! (Interestingly, it was republished by Multnomah Press in 2005.) So I chose to use Haddon Robinson's, "Biblical Preaching" as the assigned text. A very good book, if not as linear and pragmatic as Braga's. Regardless of the books' differences, note the similarity in their title, an indication of each author's commitment: biblical preaching.

There are three types of sermons:

• The expository sermon takes a more-or-less extended passage of the Bible and presents its truths and their application for daily life. The goal is to communicate the original intent of the author (Author) - what he wanted his original readers to understand. This has value because we believe the Bible to be God's timeless Word. What God said then on the pages of Scripture remains true and relevant today. Thus, what God wanted the original readers to understand is what he wants us to learn and do.
• The textual sermon takes a very brief section of Scripture - typically just one verse although it may be two - and does the same as the expository sermon. The textual sermon is sometimes appropriate because there are individual verses with so much content, such powerful meaning, that they warrant more focused attention.
• The topical sermon looks at a biblical topic, pulling from the length and breadth of Scripture the passages that speak to that topic. One of the pitfalls of the topical sermon is the tendency to choose too broad a topic, e.g. "Prayer." It's essential that the preacher narrow his topic such that he can apply adequate biblical texts, e.g. "The Reasons for 'Unanswered' Prayer." 

There are some structural and procedural differences between these three types, but the above is what primarily sets them apart. 

At Pathway we're currently going through the book of Romans. It's a relatively long and potent New Testament book, so we do a section, maybe 8-10 weeks, and then break for a 2-3 week mini-series. Last Sunday we looked at the thought unit that is 12:3-8 where Paul talks about each Christian's role in the local church, our interdependence as each of us fulfills our responsibility to serve the others. An expository sermon. The prior message from Romans looked just at 12:2, a verse on Christian living in a sometimes morally hostile culture so dense with truth that it needed to be treated by itself. A textual sermon. 

In between the sermon from 12:2 and last Sunday's on 12:3-8 I did a 3-week series: "Three Things God Wants Every Christian to Know." Each Sunday was a topical sermon, one of the three things the Bible emphasizes as a truth absolutely essential to the Christian experience. 

In truth, there's a fourth kind of sermon, the contemporary sermon. It can be a fine distinction, but the difference between the contemporary sermon and the three mentioned above is critical and widely unrecognized. Methinks a lot of listeners hear the fourth and assume it's one of the first three.

In the contemporary sermon the preacher speaks to the people about something he thinks they need to hear. It may meet one of their real or perceived needs, it may be on a hot topic, or a call to action in some area. During his sermon he will probably use the Bible to suport his premise, and occasionally do so by referring to a single passage. But therein lies the crucial difference. He uses the Bible to support, he doesn't preach the Bible as the sole source for both his premise and its development. That's why Braga and Robinson titled their books as they did. The Bible isn't a book to be used by the preacher; it should be the essence of his preaching. When the dear people of Pathway leave on a Sunday morning the question they must be able to answer in the affirmative is, "Do I know what the Bible says to a greater extent than when I walked in? Was the core and focal point of that sermon the teaching of Scripture?" Was it "Thus saith the Lord" or was it "Thus saith Pastor Craig?" 

What I'm calling the contemporary sermon may appear as any one of the three types mentioned above (and identified by Braga and Robinson). But the discerning listener will note the difference by asking those questions. Did you listen to God speak in that sermon as the Word was opened to you, or was it the preacher? 

Note: both Braga and Robinson point out the inherent risk of too much topical preaching which, of the three, can most easily slide into contemporary preaching. 

Four and a half years ago, when we were choosing a name for our brand new church, the one thing the ten of us agreed on was that our middle name would be "Bible." Pathway Bible Church is committed to preaching and teaching the Bible. Nothing their pastor has to say has any lasting value compared to the timeless truths of Scripture. 

Thus saith the Lord. 

Or, as Billy Graham put it, "The Bible says....!