I too chose to write about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One aspect I find especially powerful is
his use of the word
we
toward the end of the sermon, as this allows the congregation to
see him personally in need, just as they are in need of Christ. However, what is also
interesting in this passage is his use of the words McDill considers negative. Bonhoeffer
writes “… there is something we
must
clear up… we
need
to make clear…” [italics
mine].[1] On the topic of wording, McDill writes “common terms that mark imperative
preaching are
must, ought, and should.
The most common expression of all in this
approach may be ‘we need to…’ The constant use of this phrase indicates the preacher
is dissatisfied with the present performance of the congregation.”[2] How is it that
Bonhoeffer is able to use them well in his sermon? Perhaps because of the
we
he has
placed in front of the term. He is not indicating dissatisfaction with the congregation, but
rather challenging all of them (himself included) to pursue excellence. John Albert
Broadus represents a breed of gentlemen scholar-preachers who enjoyed regional and
national influence in America in the last half of the eighteenth century. A brief stint as a
pastor gave him practical understanding of pastoral ministry and prepared him for the
institutional role that would free him to influence the theory and practice of homiletics in
the English-speaking world for a century.
Contemporary preachers would do well to emulate his best qualities of spiritual devotion
to Christ, love of the Scriptures, respect for the church, and diligent scholarship. He was
a student of the Bible, a master exegete, a rhetorician of the first order, and a man of
letters. Each of these interests and skills fed the others. It was interesting to read your
contribution because I did not write about one of the preachers and the other one
I did! It gave me some good perspectives I did not see in one of the ones I didn't
write about and added an additional viewpoint on the one I covered in my
discussion board essay. I think you are spot on when it comes to Billy Grahm's
sermon titled "Things That Never Change." He really was doing a twist into
McDill's "Aiming for Faith Response." I probably would not have caught that, but
this sermon's primary purpose was a "call for faith in the hearer,"[1] which
ultimately states Graham's goal in his ministry; to bring people to Christ and to
live for Christ.
Your analysis of Jerry Falwell was also something I completely agree with, and
you brought a perspective I did not notice. We do know that Jerry Falwell's
preaching style was very encouraging and had an appealing call to action for each
one. e I compared his sermon to a different McDill's outline than "drawing pictures,
telling stories," but I can completely see that! Thank you for explaining how that
fits with his preaching style. I really enjoyed your post, and the two preachers you
selected are two that had a major impact on the kingdom. e I agree with you that “Aiming
for Faith Response” seems to be a perfect summation of Billy Grahams goals and
aspirations when it comes to a sermon. e I like your quote from McDill, as it perfectly
describes the sermons of Billy Graham. e Everything Billy Graham did was aimed to bring
people to Jesus. e I like when you said, “Graham ‘s ultimate objective is to bring people
into the family of faith and save their soul.” This fits perfectly with McDill and the
“Aiming for the Faith Response.” e McDill describes “Aiming for the Faith Response” as
“Even though human motives are always mixed, our response to God must be based
finally on our trust in him as he makes himself known in Christ.”[1] Good job with your
quote about Billy Graham and connecting it to McDills skill that is perfectly exemplified
in Billy Graham
