Having exposure to Preachers all my life, one thing I know is that we all have an opinion about the right way to preach.  Some will take a verse or two and build a topic around them.  Others will pick a topic and pull from various places to support it.  Still others will move methodically through the scripture explaining as they go, focusing exclusively on the messages presented by the verses they cover.  Then there are those who don’t bother including any scripture at all.  Generally everyone will have a justification for their approach.  I of course have my own, which will probably mature with practice.  Opinions are just that.  I think all too often we are much to proud of ours.  For my part, if I offer any criticism, it will be of substance rather than method.  The most important questions to be asked are these:  Are you speaking the truth?  Are you doing it with love?  Are led by His Spirit in what you say?

My opinion may not be worth much at this point, but I will offer it anyway.  It goes back to the questions I just asked.  Different messages and circumstances will be best served by different approaches.  The objective is to best communicate the truth.  In either of the first two cases, one must take care to choose appropriately passages that do support the truth being conveyed.  Too often we misappropriate text to make our point that in its context actually has nothing to do with what we are saying.  When we do this, we damage our credibility with those astute enough to take note of the error or who discover it later.  This strengthens the argument for what we call expository preaching, wherein we follow the text and explain its meaning verse by verse.  Note to my educated pastor friends, I’m being intentionally high-level here.

I tend to use a blend.  I may start out with a topic and a passage that I believe to support it, but I will include as much as is practical the context and will always endeavor to explain that which we do not have the time to cover in depth.  I have in some cases ended up with an entirely different subject matter because I discovered that the passage I chose really did not say what I assumed or had been taught that it did.  Today I wrapped up a message that turned into three messages because I felt it necessary to follow the passage to it’s proper conclusion point rather than stop at a place where Jesus clearly did not.  It is certainly appropriate and exemplified within the scripture itself to pull from other parts that bolster the teaching found in the main passage.

As for using no scripture at all, truth is truth, but if we claim the Bible as our source then we had better be able to back up what we say with something that it says.  I think there are cases when using biblical truths without immediately revealing their source may serve to soften hearts that might otherwise reject what is being said, but I do not believe this is generally appropriate for a preacher in a church setting.  In so doing, we may speak the truth, but we have failed not only to back it up but also to instruct others in the use of scripture to discover the truth for themselves.  The latter may be the greater failure because we are to make disciples.  People who must always be fed will not grow to become members of a healthy church that is doing its job.  We have also diminished by example that which explains the foundation for all that we believe.  This will result in followers easily misled by anyone who can make an eloquent case, and we may find that we ourselves have been misled.  The Word of God must be our standard.