Haddon Robinson and "Big Idea" Preaching

Image

In this excerpt from his classic text, Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson explains his view of the “big idea” of biblical preaching:1

I do not appreciate opera; what is worse, I have several friends who do. Being around them makes me feel as if I exist in a cultural desert, so I have taken several steps to change my condition. On occasion I have actually attended an opera. Like a sinner shamed into attending church, I have made my way to the music hall to let culture have its way in me. On most of these visits, however, I have returned home unresponsive to what the artists have tried to do.

I understand enough about opera, of course, to know that a story is being acted out with the actors singing rather than speaking their parts. Usually, though, the storyline stays as vague to me as the Italian lyrics, but the opera buffs tell me that the plot is incidental to the performance. Should someone bother to ask my evaluation of the opera, I would comment on the well-constructed sets, the brilliant costumes, or the heftiness of the soprano. I could render no reliable judgment on the interpretation of the music or even the dramatic impact of the performance. When I return from the music hall with a crumpled program and an assortment of random impressions, I actually do not know how to evaluate what has taken place.

When people attend church, they respond to the preacher like a novice at the opera. They have never been told what a sermon is supposed to do. Commonly many listeners react to the emotional highs. They enjoy the human interest stories, jot down a catchy sentence or two, and judge the sermon a success if the preacher quits on time. Important matters, such as the subject of the sermon, may escape them completely. Years ago, Calvin Coolidge returned home from church one Sunday and was asked by his wife what the minister had talked about. Coolidge replied, “Sin.” When his wife pressed him as to what the preacher said about sin, Coolidge responded, “I think he was against it.”

The truth is that many people in the pew would not score much higher than Coolidge if quizzed about the content of last Sunday’s sermon. To them, preachers preach about sin, salvation, prayer, or suffering all together or one at a time in thirty-five minutes. Judging from the uncomprehending way in which listeners talk about a sermon, it is hard to believe that they have listened to a message. Instead the responses indicate that they leave with a basketful of fragments but no adequate sense of the whole.

Unfortunately, some of us preach as we have listened. Preachers, like their audiences, may conceive of sermons as a collection of points that have little relationship to each other. Here textbooks designed to help speakers may actually hinder them. Discussions of outlining usually emphasize the place of Roman and Arabic numerals along with proper indentation, but these factors (important as they are) may ignore the obvious – an outline is the shape of a sermon idea, and the parts must all be related to the whole. Three or four ideas not related to a more inclusive idea do not make a message; they make three or four sermonettes all preached at one time. Reuel L. Howe listened to hundreds of taped sermons and held discussions with laypeople. He concluded that many people in the pew “complain almost unanimously that sermons often contain too many ideas.” That may not be an accurate observation. Sermons seldom fail because they have too many ideas; more often they fail because they deal with too many unrelated ideas.

Fragmentation poses a particular danger for the expository preacher. Some expository sermons offer little more than scattered comments based on words and phrases from a passage, making no attempt to show how the various thoughts fit together as a whole. At the outset the preacher may catch the congregation’s mind with some observation about life, or worse, jump into the text with no though at all about the present. As the sermons goes on, the preacher comments on the words or phrases in the passage with sub-themes and major themes and individual words all given equal emphasis. The conclusion, if there is one, often substitutes a vague exhortation for relevant application, because no single truth has emerged to apply. When the congregation goes back into the world, it has received no message by which to live because it has not occurred to the preacher to preach one.

A major affirmation of our definition of expository preaching, therefore, maintains that “expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept.” That affirms the obvious. A sermon should be a bullet, not a buckshot. Ideally each sermon is the explanation, interpretation, or application of a single dominant idea supported by other ideas, all drawn from one passage or several passages of Scripture.

Notes

1 Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Preaching, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 33-35.

Discussion

I agree with the article. You miss a lot of the details of Scripture if you reduce everything down to one propositional statement for each passage you preach. That was why I responded negatively to Tyler’s comment (in a different thread) that everything but the main idea of his passage was “white noise.” No, not at all.

Again, you should allow the passage you’re preaching to shape your sermon both in content and structure. When you preach, your people should be able to see the direct correlation between your sermon and the passage under consideration. If no one but you could find the points of your message in the passage, then you’re not following the text. Also, if you reduce everything in the passage to one point, when the passage clearly is communicating more, you’ve robbed the text of its structure and content and the author of what he was trying to communicate.

The closer your sermon follows the text of Scripture, both in content and structure, the better off your preaching will be.

I first read Kuravilla in his Text to Praxis five or so years ago so I am familiar with his “world in front of the text.” I read this article quickly, but it in that quick reading, it seems to me that he isn’t reacting against Big Idea preaching so much as he is reacting to a straw man of it, or perhaps Big Idea preaching done wrong.

I fully agree that if people skip the text and preach the Big Idea, they are wrong. Or if they preach the Big Idea and omit parts of the text, they are wrong (though no message can say every possible thing about a text). Or if they preach a narrative like an epistle or an epistle like a prophet they are wrong since genre matters and the genre of the sermon should track with the genre of the text. Of course you want to know what the author is doing with the text as well as how he does it and that must drive our preaching. It is not just the words that are inspired in some sort of naked way, but the words in a particular genre that are inspired. But overall, it is hard for me to see that he is actually addressing Big Idea preaching rather than some distortion of it.

It is also seems odd to assert that no two biblical pericopes can ever have the same thrust or force. I can’t imagine what the support for that is.

Also, if you reduce everything in the passage to one point, when the passage clearly is communicating more, you’ve robbed the text of its structure and content and the author of what he was trying to communicate.

I think the response of “Big Idea” preaching to this is that this type of message has confused the support for the Big Idea with a second or different big idea. BI preaching is not really reducing it to one point per se; it still recognizes movement in and through a text. But in such a case as you describe, it might be that the “more” is actually something different, which should be another message; or that it supports a bigger idea than has been identified.

is the title of my sermon or the sermon title is a retelling of the Big Idea. In that case it has to do with my opening illustration.

Don't be a great pastor, just be a pastor and let history judge for itself.