A word from …: The practice of our preaching

Abstract

During July 2014, I attended the Baptist World Alliance Annual Gathering in Izmir, Turkey. One meeting involved the launch of the book Baptist Preaching: A Global Anthology.1 The book, edited by Joel C. Gregory, comprises of thirty-five sermons from around the globe. Dedicated to the British Baptist theologian, the Rev. Dr. Paul Fiddes, it is a good book with a range of interesting sermons. During the launch, Gregory provided some description and analysis of the sermons. He helpfully explored the “Baptist identity” of “Baptist preaching” in relation to themes such as: “the place of tradition,” “autonomy of the local church,” “priesthood of believers,” “separation of church and state,” and “biblical authority.” This analysis was in addition to the analysis he offers in the introduction to the book and before each sermon. A feature of this written analysis particularly caught my attention. In the introduction he indicates what he calls “the Baptist predisposition, if not to say fondness, for the deductive style”.2 The deductive style of preaching starts with a central or general idea derived from the biblical text and logically unpacks the particular meanings of this for the listeners through a series of subdivisions. Gregory states: “At its best, deductive preaching roots in the soil of the text, has a trunk that presents one big idea, and produces branches that inevitably grow out of that big idea.”3 Of the thirty-five sermons in the collection, he designates twenty-seven as being to “some extent” of this deductive style.4 I do not doubt his analysis of these sermons. I also suspect, while it cannot be proved from this sample of sermons, that he is probably correct in suggesting a general Baptist predisposition towards this approach to preaching. Commenting further on this deductive approach to preaching and with reference to the work of Baptist writer Robert Reid, Gregory notes that this style “conforms to the Baptist partiality for the teaching voice in the pulpit.”5 Reid himself is not uncritical of the teaching voice. Yet he recognizes