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. j 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. 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. j I like your quote from McDill, as it perfectly describes the
sermons of Billy Graham. j Everything Billy Graham did was aimed to bring people to
Jesus. j I like when you said, “Graham ‘s ultimate objective is to bring people into the
family of faith and save their soul.” j This fits perfectly with McDill and the “Aiming for the
Faith Response.” j 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] j Good job with your quote about Billy
Graham and connecting it to McDills skill that is perfectly exemplified in Billy Graham
[1] Wayne McDill, 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching, 2nd Ed. (Austin, TX:
WORDsearch, 2013), 189.
