Preaching Today: To help govern our conversation a bit, could you define doctrine for us?

Wayne Shaw: I'm going to skip the complex explanations that my seminary professor gave me regarding the difference between doctrine, theology, and dogma, and offer a definition that is quite Pauline: Doctrine is that body of Christian teachings that make the church the church and the Christian a growing Christian.

The answer is probably tucked away in that helpful definition, but tell us why you feel the preacher should preach doctrine.

For me, the deep questions of life are theological, and the answers are theological. Philosophy can raise the basic questions, but only a word from outside—theology—can adequately answer them. As preachers, we need a theology of preaching to sustain ourselves, and we need a theology to preach to sustain our hearers. That's why preaching doctrine is so important.

So I would answer the question with a couple of questions of my own. What else is there to preach? Why not preach doctrine? I'm not trying to be cute with that. I'm simply saying that if we answer those questions, it's probably the clue as to why doctrine isn't being preached more often.

You just mentioned that there's not enough doctrinal preaching going on in our ecclesial circles today. Do you think preachers are intimidated by the idea of it? Are they afraid of getting it wrong?

Doctrinal statements are nearly always abstractions that rise out of concrete situations. The further up the ladder of abstraction they go, the more remote they seem. The more remote they are, the more they are in danger of getting labeled as some "social construct" or ideas of the writer or code words for rallying the troops around the particular flag that the speaker has in mind.

So one of the more intimidating things is that whenever the preacher has to deal with lofty, abstract ideas, people immediately begin asking, "And who are you to say such things?"

Right. And you also asked, "Are preachers afraid of getting doctrine wrong?" I would say not to treat doctrine seriously is certainly getting it wrong.

What do you think, then, is most often getting preached in place of doctrine?

Pop psychology, pop culture, and personal values—with a sprinkling of humor and salt and a few scattered verses from the Bible.

I think it's the preacher's attempt at being popular. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be popular, as long as the sermons have size and substance to them. Strong, healthy doctrine is the only way to get both of those.

Are there any other challenges we have to overcome as we're dealing with doctrinal preaching?

Probably the ones we have to overcome the most are the sermons we have heard that purport to be doctrinal and the way doctrines have been handled in the past.

The preachers who have tried doctrinal preaching in the past often preach sermons as though they're doctrinal lectures stood up on their hind legs. They're taken from a book or from college notes, with the smell of the lamp on them. They're not related to life.

It's what someone called "a two-pocket universe"—carrying our doctrines around in one pocket and then living out of the other one. That has to be corrected if doctrinal preaching is to be helpful at all.

And how can preachers overcome the intimidating nature of doctrinal preaching?

Simply commit yourself to preaching doctrine. Out of that resolute commitment, then, there will be the motivation to really want to do it well.

My other suggestion is to use good models. Learn from preachers who preach doctrine well. James S. Stewart of Edinburgh has certainly taught me the most in this area. His second book of sermons is entitled The Strong Name. It was taken from St. Patrick's statement, "I bind myself today to the strong name of the Trinity." The book is full of doctrinal sermons. Stewart rarely preached a biblical sermon that didn't have a doctrine at its core, and it almost always throbs with life and power. For example, his sermon in Revelation 19:6, "The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth." God's sovereignty is at the center of life, and Stewart says it means nothing less than the liberation of life, the doom of sin, and the comfort of sorrow. There will always be a need for preaching like that!

I remember a statement you once made about baptism. So many will ask, "Do I have to do this?" I remember you turning that question into the statement, "No—you get to." I wonder—would you argue the same with preaching doctrine? It's not just that you have to as a preacher; it's that you get to?

Exactly. If we're going to form a Christian community into what the Bible calls the church, we're going to have to deal with the major tenets biblically—what we're to believe and what we're to do. In other words, "What marks us as Christians? What marks us as a community of faith?" If we don't know that faith, then we're just joining another organization. That's how serious it is to me.

You've just given us another layer of the power of doctrinal preaching—what better way to stir community, than by way of a doctrinal ceiling that brings us together?

Yes. But it has to be a mixture—a tension between the dark line in God's face and the more positive side. If it's not uplifting—if it's just what I call "homiletical nagging"—then culture's current view of doctrine has a point. Homiletical nagging is when the preacher only looks at a particular brotherhood's specifics or his own pet peeves that he comes to again and again. These sermons often don't have any gospel in them. They're not proclamation. Many of them are not necessarily biblical! They just happen to be the culture of the church at the current moment.

Let's move into the mechanics of doctrinal preaching. How often should a preacher preach doctrine? Should they work a little bit of doctrinal teaching into every sermon? Should they preach one doctrine-heavy sermon a month? One series a year?

Preach doctrine all the time, preach it well, and preach it with variety.

I'm convinced only planned preaching will get at what we're talking about here. Now, you have to be sure that you don't have too many heavy sermons in a row. Again, you have to avoid what I call "the smell of the lamp." Don't let your sermons become a series of lofty, academic lectures, but don't let that stop you from preaching doctrine all the time.

As for the question of variety, Andrew W. Blackwood talked about direct doctrinal preaching and indirect doctrinal preaching. I believe the Bible uses the indirect method more than the direct method, but both are important. Let me see if I can give you an example or two of actual sermons or teachings from the Bible.

With all the emphasis today on narrative preaching, we need to remind ourselves that the people involved in the first century did not really understand what had taken place at Calvary until Pentecost, when Peter stood up with the eleven and proclaimed what had just taken place. Direct doctrinal treatment was given to the mightiest of all mighty acts of God. It had to be explained; it had to be articulated.

As for a more indirect approach, consider Romans 6. Paul confronts Christians who are sinning and excusing it because of God's grace. Here is a very practical, existential need in the church at Rome that needs to be met. To do so, Paul revisits their baptism, showing them that they have been buried and raised to new life in Christ. They shouldn't dare act like that never happened. All the while, Paul is also indirectly cementing the doctrine of the work of Christ. It's classic doctrinal teaching in an indirect fashion.

The early church and its leaders preached doctrine all the time, preached it well, and with variety—directly and indirectly. It goes without saying that we ought to do the same even today!

In part two of this two-part series, Shaw offers more insight into the mechanics of doctrinal preaching.

Preaching Today: Are there any strategic points throughout the year for doctrinal preaching?

Wayne Shaw: The Christian year is the first thing that comes to my mind. I recently heard a sermon on Easter Sunday that didn't say anything about the Resurrection. It was a good sermon, but it didn't say a word about Christ and the empty tomb. I thought to myself, What a lost opportunity!

The doctrines are there if your sensitizers are geared for them.

Beyond the Christian year, there are some things that are always true of every Christian, in any era, at any time. There are others that are so specific to our cultural setting that they dare not be ignored, either. Biblical doctrines can be applied in both situations.

Your last point reminds me of the recent Virginia Tech tragedy. There were numerous opportunities to preach doctrine in light of those events.

Right. Here you've got the ultimate questions of life that many people never think about for months and years at a time. The tragedy is so real. It stains their cheeks with tears. It stirs their fears. It causes them to wonder about the meaning of life and what they're doing and shouldn't be doing. Those events are opportunities for a positive treatment of what our faith offers.

You hinted at this already in our time together, but I want to go a little deeper with it. Scholars Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart argue that half the battle in Bible study is simply asking the right questions. Let's apply that to preaching doctrine. What are the right questions to ask as you prepare a doctrinal message?

Be sure to ask, "What major doctrines are stated or implied in the text or its context?" Eugene Lowery advises even if a doctrine is not stated in the text, back up and look at what comes before it. I would even check out what follows your particular text.

Here is an important question to ask if you choose to preach a Christian doctrine in a more topical manner: "What scriptural support will you choose for this?"

James Forbes taught us to ask two questions of a text: "What's the good news and what's the bad news?"

A question that has come to me far late in my ministry is, "Where's the tension in the text?" If there's no tension, you may have a logical lecture, but you don't have a sermon.

A few other questions come to mind: "What is the biblical writer trying to say to his readers, both then and now? What is the writer communicating with the language he uses historically, grammatically, rhetorically, and literarily? I put "rhetorically" in deliberately, because most of the time, literary criticism carries the day. But the literature of the Bible rose out of rhetorical situations, and it has to be translated rhetorically into the life of the congregation.

Finally, "What will this mean to the people I'm preaching to?" John Wesley asked this question as part of his standard practice. He would sit his charwoman down and go through his sermon with her. If there was a word or an idea that she didn't understand, he scrapped it and got one that she would. We want to communicate to someone and not just get it out of our heads!

What are some of the study resources that you have found to be most helpful in preparing doctrine-heavy sermons?

Bible dictionaries are a place to start. Theological dictionaries are helpful resources, too. I'm particularly partial to Colin Brown's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" series. His work offers good background information for a word or a term. I also get a lot out of Frank Stagg and Donald Guthrie's "New Testament Theologies." They're trustworthy and illuminating.

The formal study of theology has some real benefit to it, as well—biblical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and contemporary theology. At its core, theology relates the Bible to current issues, questions, and challenges. It's a living and growing thing, and there's always more to learn.

When preaching doctrine, would you emphasize a more in-depth, expositional approach, focusing almost exclusively on one or two texts, or a more systematic approach, looking at a particular topic from multiple angles and multiple texts?

I'd say both. I most often land on the more exegetical, expository look at doctrine. For a number of years now, I've advocated the preacher spending half their time working through a major section of Scripture that will lift out the Word of God itself—either a Bible book or a major section like the Sermon on the Mount or the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The rest of the time can be given to other approaches. Well-done topical preaching allows you to directly address what people are asking, but you may get at it just as easily by making it a minor point in an expository message on a passage. I would say much of the time, you simply let the Bible raise these issues as they come along.

Let me add an important note, though: If you're not aware of the doctrinal categories, you'll miss them. The same text that James S. Stewart would use to hold up Christology or the kingdom of God, other people would just pass over and talk about the historical background of the text or the Christian duty that's implied. The doctrines are there if your sensitizers are geared for them. Balance is the tough thing here. One homiletician used to say, "If you don't get God or Christ or the Holy Spirit into the introduction or the first main heading, it's increasingly harder as time goes on." That's true with doctrine as a whole.

How can preachers bring lofty, difficult ideas to the heart of the listener? Craft some masterful illustrations or metaphors? Dream up powerful refrains? Create tight, memorable definitions? Help us discover a few ways you've found to tackle difficult truths for the listener.

I'd say using all the ingredients you list, but it's still more a conviction to preach doctrinally so that it comes out your pores!

I'd suggest you look carefully at the historical, concrete situation out of which the abstraction grew, or look at another situation where it has been applied. The Bible itself illustrates this. Look at the Exodus. When you first read about it in the Old Testament, it's an event or circumstance. When you read about it in Deuteronomy, it's recaptured to instruct the Israelites. When you read about it in the prophets or in the Psalms, it's used to meet another specific need. When you turn to the Book of Hebrews, the Exodus is seen in yet a newer and better light. It's the same Exodus, but it is applied out of its historical situation into another situation.

The abstract quality of a doctrine makes it portable, so that we can carry it from one situation to another. Doctrine, if it's genuine doctrine and not just our prejudices, is transcultural. It arises out of a culture, and it has to be applied into our culture.

Simply put, you need to have one finger on the major biblical, theological categories and another on the questions, problems, and issues that your listeners are facing. That's what Karl Barth meant when he said, "You have the Bible in one hand and the morning newspaper in the other." Maybe if he were writing today, he would say "a finger on the computer key."

Since a lot of learning comes by way of observing or listening, who are the preachers—either past or present—that you would point us to as masterful preachers of doctrine?

Every major movement in Christianity in the last 20 centuries has been marked by capable, charismatic doctrinal preachers. I'm thinking of all the French Catholic preachers who used to preach before the French court. Their sermons were couched in doctrine. I'm thinking of the Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Zinzendorf. The Wesleyan revival in Britain—that was doctrinal to the core. Read about major people in "20 Centuries of Great Preaching," and far and away, most of them will be doctrinal preachers. Every major movement in Christian history has had strong doctrinal preaching as a part of it.

So do you think one of the crucial elements to some kind of revival or redemptive outbreak within the world is going to come by way of capable, charismatic doctrinal preachers?

I think so. The Christian community is not of the world. It's in the world, but not of it. I don't know how that tension can be kept without high doctrine.

When R. W. Dale first arrived at Carr's Lane in Birmingham, England, the leaders cautioned him that he must not preach doctrine, because the congregation wouldn't stand for it. R. W. Dale replied, "They'll have to stand for it." And before he was there very long, they loved him for it.

Or consider what Dorothy Sayers, who gave up writing mysteries to write theology, said: "We may call it revelation, or we may call it rubbish, but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all."

Dr. Wayne Shaw is Dean Emeritus for Lincoln Christian Seminary in Lincoln, Illinois, and author of Designing the Sermon (National Bicentennial Committee, 1975).